Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SECURITY

Incentives to Work

Dr. Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what incentives to work will be included in his reforms of unemployment benefits. [39682]

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley): A key theme of my reforms has been helping people to move back into work. I recently introduced an extra £10 per week in family credit for those working 30 hours or more and I have announced the jobseeker's allowance, the back-to-work bonus and the pilot earnings top-up scheme to make work more worth while for unemployed people without dependent children and with limited earning power. The eight areas in which we plan the pilot are published today and the draft rules of the scheme have been placed in the Vote Office.

Dr. Spink: I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement of the areas in which he intends to pilot the earnings top-up scheme. Will he use pilot schemes whenever possible, as they represent an excellent way to introduce new schemes? Will he contrast the Government's excellent and very measured reforms in social security with those of Labour and with Labour's announcement this week that it will consider reforms at any cost? Will he reflect on what that cost might be?

Mr. Lilley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his welcome for the earnings top-up pilot and for the principle of piloting. He is right to say that we have been reforming the welfare state systematically, spelling out our principles and our policies, testing them in practice and inviting public debate. That is in clear contrast with the Labour party, which if today's news reports are to be believed—we await confirmation from the Opposition Front Bench—has torn up its entire stance on social security for the third time—a triple U-turn on the part of the Leader of the Labour party.

Mr. Frank Field: Does the Secretary of State accept that he is now the main recruiting sergeant to the dependency culture against which the Government so often rail? Does he appreciate that, by limiting the jobseeker's allowance to six months, he is providing an incentive for the wives of the unemployed to join the dole queue as well? And does he agree that the most important way of helping people back into work and ensuring a more equal household income level in Britain would be

to reverse that reform which so penalises working wives that they find it profitable to give up work and join their husbands on the dole?

Mr. Lilley: No, I do not accept the hon. Member's point, if only because we are extending from 16 to 24 the hours that partners of unemployed people can work so as to give them added incentive to stay in work. Family credit often acts as a bridge when one partner is out of work. All the studies show that many people leave family credit because they are unable to stay in work during that period. The spouse then returns to work, so both partners are working.

Mr. Jenkin: Does my hon. Friend agree that the introduction of incentives to help people off benefit is among the most important tasks of his Department? Will he also reflect on the fact that, unless those reforms reduce the overall cost of social security, we shall still be moving in the wrong direction, and that the Labour party's determination to tear up the report of the Commission on Social Justice and go further can mean only that Labour is determined to spend more money than ever?

Mr. Lilley: We are awaiting clarification from the Labour party. The Commission on Social Justice proposed £7 billion additional spending financed by an equivalent amount of extra income tax raised through the abolition of allowances. We are now told that that was not radical enough, but we are not sure in what direction. My hon. Friend is right to say that helping people back to work is a key part of what we are doing and one of the Government's great success stories.

Widow's Payment

Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in what circumstances the widow's payment will be uprated. [39685]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Oliver Heald): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State continues to keep the level of the widow's payment under review.

Mr. Flynn: Why is the widow's payment, which replaced a payment that was uprated annually, still stuck at £1,000, when, if it had been increased in line with earnings, it would now be £1,881? Why is the maternity payment still £100, when it should be £141? Meanest of all, the additional payment to pensioners over the age of 80 should by now be £3.55, but it is still a miserable 25p. Will the Minister make it clear that any handouts to the super-rich in the Budget will be paid for by continuing to cheat the poor, the elderly, the sick and widows?

Mr. Heald: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I do not entirely accept his figures. The widow's payment is a tax-free lump sum, paid to help widows to adjust to new circumstances and, importantly, it is payable immediately. It complements the widow's pension and widowed mother's allowance, which have been uprated annually.
The Labour party seems to be having another look at welfare and social security issues. The hon. Gentleman, who is a senior Back Bencher, once said that, when he became Prime Minister, things would change in a very different way. Perhaps he would like to give his advice to Labour Front Benchers. As it would cost £1.7 billion to implement the upratings that he wants—equivalent to a


penny on income tax—perhaps Labour Front Benchers will tell us whether this is the latest move in the Labour party's abandonment of sensible economic policy.

Charitable Donations

Mr. Charles Kennedy: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will review his policy in respect of the withdrawal of benefits from people in receipt of charitable donations. [39686]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Roger Evans): As with all policy, the treatment of charitable donations when calculating entitlement to an income-related benefit is kept under continual review.

Mr. Kennedy: I thank the Minister for that reply. He will be aware that my question is prompted by an earlier written question to him, transferred to the Benefits Agency, concerning an adjudication made in respect of a local charity, the Chelsey Austin appeal fund. That has now been satisfactorily resolved, and I pay tribute to the local newspaper, The Press and Journal, for the important role that it played in drawing attention to the unfairness involved. As there are implications for Scottish trust law and for the calculation of capital for charities of this kind, will the Minister confirm that such information will be made widely available throughout Scotland, so that such an error does not recur?

Mr. Evans: The simple answer to the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question is yes. Unfortunately, in the case that he raised there was a technical defect: the adjudicating officer had not noticed that Parliament has passed an Act this Session altering the requirements for a Scottish trust to be in writing. We value the special provisions relating to charitable arrangements when calculating entitlement to income-related benefits. The trust to which the hon. Gentleman refers is a classic example of special arrangements, made locally, to provide medical and other special equipment.

Benefit Take-up

Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what efforts he is making to encourage the take-up of benefits. [39687]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Andrew Mitchell): The Department is involved in a wide range of national and local initiatives to ensure that accurate and accessible information is available. These are often undertaken in conjunction with local interest and advice groups, including in the hon. Gentleman's constituency.

Mr. Banks: I am obliged to the Minister. I am as opposed to social security fiddling as anyone in this House, but I am equally opposed to income tax fiddling—some of which takes place not a million miles from this House. Will the Minister explain why, according to the Department, a total of £2.73 billion-worth of benefits went unclaimed in 1992, including £12 million-worth in my borough alone? What is the Minister doing to ensure a proper take-up of social security benefits by those

entitled to them? And why do we have figures only for 1992? How much was unclaimed in 1994, and what is the Minister doing about it?

Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind the scale of the figures: £9 out of every $10 is claimed. It is the Government's job to provide benefits and to provide information about them. That is done in a variety of ways—including, as I said, in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, where a video has been made to encourage benefit take-up. It was launched in July and I had the opportunity to watch it last weekend. It is helpful and is being requested by benefit offices all over the country. We put information about benefits across in a wide variety of ways and spend about £26 million per year advertising them.

Asylum Seekers

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement about social security payments to asylum seekers. [39688]

Mr. Lilley: I have put forward proposals on social security payments to asylum seekers and to other persons from abroad. The proposals are intended to reduce the number of unfounded asylum applications made in the United Kingdom, and to ensure that those entering this country on the understanding that they will not be a burden on the taxpayer cannot gain access to the benefit system just by submitting an asylum claim. Those proposals are with the Social Security Advisory Committee which, following public consultation, will report with recommendations in December.

Mr. Marshall: While everyone in this country welcomes the assistance given to genuine asylum seekers, many people are appalled at the way in which this country has become the soft touch in Europe. Does my right hon. Friend accept that at least £300 million of taxpayers' money goes to asylum seekers—such as Mr. Abdelkader Benouif, who is helping the police with their inquiries into a mass bombing campaign in Paris? Should not such individuals be sent packing from this country instead of being subsidised by the taxpayer?

Mr. Lilley: I confirm my hon. Friend's point about the scale of expenditure on would-be asylum seekers. I cannot comment on individual cases, but under the changes that I propose it would no longer be possible to extend one's stay in this country almost indefinitely by making appeals against refusal to grant asylum. After a rejection, any further appeal would have to be made without resort to benefits—in the same way as a British citizen who is refused income support does not continue to receive that benefit pending the appeal.

Mr. Gerrard: As the law gives a right of appeal, is it sensible to put people on to the street? Appeals can take a year or 18 months to be heard. What are people supposed to live on during that time? If an appeal is successful—and people do win appeals—will the benefit be backdated to the point at which it was withdrawn?

Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman cannot have been listening. In respect of appeals, we are putting asylum seekers in the same position as British citizens who are refused benefit—who do not continue to receive benefits while appealing against refusal. It would be odd to


continue the present situation indefinitely. I look forward to hearing whether the Labour party intends to oppose our changes. So far, Labour has refused to reply to my letter asking for its position on that issue.

Benefit Fraud

Nigel Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what initiatives have been taken to target those who fraudulently claim benefit. [39689]

Mr. Lilley: I announced in July my new strategy to move from detection to prevention and deterrence of fraud and abuse. The plan includes extra checks on benefit claims, matching of information on the Department's computers and the introduction of benefit payment cards in place of order books and giro cheques, starting next year. Over a five-year period, those activities will shift the focus of anti-fraud effort from detection and investigation to prevention and deterrence.

Mr. Evans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that stealing and fiddling benefits are appalling acts which cost the country hundreds of millions of pounds? The country will welcome my right hon. Friend's initiatives—particularly those which use new technology, the benefit payment card and the fraud hotline. When I visited the social security office in Preston a few months ago, I met someone who was working hard to crack down on fraud in my constituency. Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to pay tribute to all staff throughout the country who are dedicated to cracking down on benefit fraud, sometimes at personal danger to themselves?

Mr. Lilley: I certainly pay tribute to the work successfully carried out—particularly by officials in my Department—to detect and prevent fraud. Last year, the amount of fraud prevented by the Benefits Agency as a result was a record of more than £700 million. Obviously we want to move to prevention and deterrence in the future, and I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support.

Ms Lynne: Although I welcome any clamp-down on benefit fraud, may I ask the Secretary of State to tell the House why the Conservative Government stopped home visits in the 1980s? Can he further tell the House what he will do to make the Benefits Agency more efficient? Is he aware that £540 million was lost last year in over-payments of income support, the majority of which were due to official error?

Mr. Lilley: I seem to recall that the change in policy occurred during the Lib-Lab Government, at the behest of the International Monetary Fund, which demanded the immediate removal of a large number of bureaucrats. However, we are looking forward, not backward, and we are introducing these changes to improve the position and to clamp down on fraud. I agree with the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), who has criticised his own party for going slow on the effort against fraud and said that the Labour party has been linked to freeloaders for too long. I am glad that at long last the Labour party is beginning to support us in the changes that we are making.

Mr. Ashby: I am grateful that my right hon. Friend has now realised that benefit fraud is far more widespread and far greater than his Department had hitherto realised, but will he get the fraud officers in his Department to realise

that it is a serious crime and that they should concentrate more on prosecuting and convicting offenders than on recovering the money? Can we see the police more involved in benefit fraud inquiries as well?

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend makes an important point. We are successful in securing a conviction when we take a case to the courts—some 95 per cent. of cases result in conviction. It is important that people should realise that they run the risk of conviction, but it is also important to get the money back from those who have wrongfully taken it. Those people may continue to have a lower level of entitlement to benefit, from which deductions can be—and are—made, and we get substantial sums back as a result.

Mr. Wicks: Does the Secretary of State accept that, after 16 long years of talking tough but acting soft, we would welcome a tough clampdown on social security fraud? Does he accept that one of the major reasons for fraud is the failure of social security recipients to declare earnings? Does he agree that we need moral leadership here today and that we have a golden opportunity to implement the Nolan report in full, including the declaration of earnings, so that, when it comes to the poorest—

Madam Speaker: Order. The question is totally outside the question on the Order Paper. We are talking about social security fraud.

Mr. Wicks: If honesty is good enough for the poor, is it not good enough for the House of Commons?

Mr. Lilley: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his role on the Opposition Front Bench and I have listened with considerable interest to the valuable contributions that he has often made on our topics in the past. I am sure that he will enrich the contributions and that in future they will be in order, but the point that he is making is rather trivial: people should obey the law and the rules—we are in all favour of that.

Social Security Reforms

Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the long-term effect on public spending of the social security reforms that he has announced so far. [39690]

Mr. Lilley: The major reforms that I have announced in the past two years are expected to reduce public spending by £4 billion per year within the next Parliament and £14 billion per year in the longer term.

Mr. Amess: Has my right hon. Friend received any support from any other political party for his important reforms to save money from the social security budget? Can he tell the House how the Labour party will be able to spend an extra £4 billion on social security other than by raising taxes?

Mr. Lilley: I am afraid that I cannot tell my hon. Friend that I have received much support from the Labour party in the process of reforming social security policy. Indeed, it has opposed almost every change that we have introduced. As a result, should there ever—heaven forbid—be a Labour Government, they would start off with a need to find an extra £4 billion per year in the next Parliament, and three times that much in the next century.


We still await some response from the new Opposition spokesman on social security, whose presence—though not, so far, his contribution—I greatly welcome today. I hope that he will tell us whether the inspired stories appearing in almost identical words in all today's newspapers are true—that the Labour leader has effectively torn up the results of the Commission on Social Justice established by his predecessor and has told his new shadow spokesman to start again from scratch—and why he has rejected a report that his own leader said was the most outstanding report since Beveridge.

Mr. Miller: One of the reforms announced by the Secretary of State which he claims will have an impact on public spending is the use of computers—for instance, the link between computers in the Department and those in income tax offices. Does he agree that a precursor to any such reform must be radical extensions of the powers of the Data Protection Registrar?

Mr. Lilley: The elements that we are currently introducing in our computer systems rely on the matching of data already held in the social security system. As the hon. Gentleman suggests, it may be sensible to go further once those systems are in place, but that would have to be squared with the privacy and data protection rules first.

Mr. Thomason: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in planning public expenditure, his Department should try to concentrate help on those who need it most? Does he believe that that is the policy that he is pursuing?

Mr. Lilley: That is at the heart of what we are doing. We spend a huge sum on social security—£15 per working person every working day—and we must ensure that that huge sum goes where it is most needed. At the same time, we must enable people to make provision for themselves, and we must increase the vitality of the economy so that more and more people secure jobs and are not in need in the first place. We are doing that more successfully than almost any other country on the continent.

Mr. Chris Smith: Is not the real cause of the ballooning social security budget the Government's own economic failure? Is it not true that, despite all the cuts, benefit expenditure has risen by £30 billion since 1979 and the number of people dependent on benefits has doubled during that period? Instead of seeking more and more victims for further cuts—from war pensioners to mortgage payers to single parents—should not the Government bend all their efforts towards creating a thriving, investment-rich economy that will lift people off benefits altogether, and into work?

Mr. Lilley: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his post as social security spokesman. He has a hard act to follow—that of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), for whose ability and integrity I never hid my admiration. I am confident that the hon. Gentleman will rise to the same heights and earn my equal respect. I am doubly confident as I am a constituent of his during the week and he will be eager to earn my vote.
The hon. Gentleman will, however, have to do rather better than today's question in future. He will have to emulate his predecessor and do his homework. He will then discover that we are being more successful than any other country in reducing unemployment. We have more people in work than any other major country in Europe. The countries that are suffering most from high and rising

unemployment are those which are pursuing the very policies that Opposition Front Benchers are dedicated to imposing on this country: a national minimum wage, and the social chapter of the Maastricht treaty—unless they tore that up before lunchtime as well.

State Pension Age

Mr. Jessel: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the cost of reducing the age of basic state pension to 60 years. [39691]

Mr. Heald: The annual cost in today's money of reducing state pension age to 60 would be £13.4 billion in 2030.

Mr. Jessel: As £13.4 billion would be equal to nearly 10p in the pound in income tax, would not Labour's proposals amount to an enormous burden on future generations? Why will Labour not come clean about that?

Mr. Heald: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The Commission on Social Justice suggested equalising the state pension age at 65; the Opposition Front Bench then suggested 63; the Labour party conference then suggested 60, at a cost of £13.4 billion. Now that the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) has been given a blank cheque to go out and change all the Opposition's policies, perhaps a state pension age of 56 will be suggested next.

Mr. MacShane: Does the Minister agree with his colleague the Minister of State at the Ministry of Defence, who believes that Members of Parliament should retire at 60, and would he care to name those Ministers who would leave the Government this afternoon?

Mr. Heald: As a young Minister I certainly have no intention of retiring. I think that the hon. Gentleman was pushing his luck.

Poverty

Mr. Sutcliffe: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people are now living below the official poverty line; and what was the figure in 1979. [39692]

The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Alistair Burt): No Government of any political persuasion have ever set an official poverty line. Since 1979, average incomes have risen by more than a third after allowing for inflation. The average incomes of all family types have risen and pensioners' average incomes have increased by some 50 per cent.

Mr. Sutcliffe: Is it not the case that, under the Tory Government, the poor get poorer while the rich get richer, particularly Tory Ministers and Tory Members? Why is it that the poorest 10 per cent. of society have seen their real incomes drop by 17 per cent. while the top 10 per cent. in society have seen their incomes rise by 62 per cent.? Does the Minister think that that is fair?

Mr. Burt: There is no doubt that there has been a great disparity in incomes in recent years. One reason is the number of couples in families who are both working; the


other is that there has been wider dispersal of incomes and differentials. As the hon. Gentleman is sponsored by a print union, he will know all about increasing differentials.

Mr. Congdon: Does my hon. Friend agree that the whole concept of a poverty level is a total misnomer, particularly when Opposition Members use it as a moving target and especially when the living standards of all groups have improved significantly over the past 16 years? That is evident from the massive increase in consumer durables among all income groups, including the bottom 10 per cent. Does that not show that the concept of a poverty line is nonsense?

Mr. Burt: The idea that poverty can be defined accurately and translated into benefit levels and minimum wage rates is a political El Dorado. Those are not my words, but those of the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), and they substantiate my hon. Friend's point. It is exceptionally difficult to set such rates. However, studies show that the bottom 10 per cent. by income in the United Kingdom is not a fixed group but moves in terms of expenditure and opportunities. The best thing that can be done is to increase incentives for work and improve job opportunities—and no Government could have done more than we have to do exactly that.

Mr. Denham: Will the Minister confirm that among the poorest people in Britain are the perhaps 600,000 pensioners who live on less than income support rates? Will he also confirm that, in preparing his Department's contribution to pre-election tax bribes, he is banking on those pensioners not claiming the support to which they are entitled? Is Britain now really a country in which pensioner poverty has to pay for the Prime Minister's aim of tax cuts for the wealthy?

Mr. Burt: I welcome the hon. Gentleman and congratulate him on his rise to the Front Bench. He will be aware that, since 1988, reforms to the social security structure have directed £1 billion towards the neediest pensioners—the people about whom he is most concerned. In general, the situation of pensioners is far better than it was in Labour's last years of power. There are far fewer pensioners than ever before in the bottom decile of incomes because of the improvements that have been made to pensions, the additions, and so on. As always, however, the position of the poorest pensioners will remain a matter for concern and care by the Government. We shall have an economy designed to support them rather than one which will fall to ruins, as would be the case if the Opposition followed the plans that they have announced.

Social Fund

Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the latest assessment in percentage terms of the cost of administration of the social fund. [39693]

Mr. Roger Evans: The cost of operating the social fund in 1993–94 was 41 per cent. of the amount of money paid out and recovered. Since the start of the scheme we have paid loans to the value of £1.5 billion for an outlay of just over one fifth of that amount—£329 million.

Mr. Pike: Would it not be common sense to reduce administration costs from that appalling level of 41 per

cent. and give grants to the people most in need, as those on income support who qualify for assistance from the social fund are the most desperately poor people in this country?

Mr. Evans: On a number of occasions, the hon. Gentleman has raised the argument—I understand why he does so—for a system of grants more similar to the old system that the social fund replaced. The difficulty with the old system was that the cost doubled every two years between 1980 and 1986 and that it proved to be inequitable, as 80 per cent. of expenditure was going to 17 per cent. of eligible claimants. The social fund is a real improvement in terms of giving more help by way of loans to more people. The multiplier effect, if I may describe it as such, is about fivefold. It does not follow that the administration costs of a grant scheme, if it is to be administered firmly, need be any less.

Mr. Bradley: Does the Minister not realise that, with half the costs of the social fund being swallowed up in administration, it is the poorest who are not receiving any help at all? Did he read the Family Welfare Association report, which was reported in The Guardian last week and which said that 116,000 items of urgent need were turned down last year because people were unable to repay as their benefits were low? Many more people did not even bother to claim because they knew that they could not afford to repay as their benefits were low. Will he urgently review that position to ensure that the poorest in our society are not further punished because of the social fund's administration costs?

Mr. Evans: The figure of half which the hon. Gentleman put to me is wrong; I have given the correct figure. Yes, of course we read and studied the report to which he alluded, but he gave a misleading impression. Only a small proportion of applicants are refused social fund loans on the ground of inability to pay. About half a per cent. of loan decisions were refusals on that ground—that is fewer people. Most of those who were refused on such a ground were already paying back one or more loans from the fund. There must be a reasonable limit to the amount advanced.

Independent Living Fund

Mr. Michael Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to make changes to the independent living fund; and if he will make a statement. [39695]

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: We have no plans at present to change the successful arrangements under which the independent living fund enables 16,000 severely disabled people to live in the community at a total annual cost of around £100 million.

Mr. Brown: I am glad to learn that my hon. Friend has no plans to make any changes. Will he take it from me that the independent living fund is a way of giving independence—very much true independence—to disabled people? It has been one of the most successful methods of financing disabled people to go about their own lives. Will he undertake to continue to regard the fund as one of the most prestigious methods of financing true independence among disabled people?

Mr. Mitchell: Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. I pay tribute to the interest that he has taken in


the funds on behalf of his constituents. During the recess, I visited the funds that are headquartered in Nottingham and attended a meeting of the board of trustees. I pay tribute to its work. It keeps in regular touch with its clients and its administration budget is extremely low, at around 1 per cent.

Disabled People

Mr. Matthew Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what action the Government are taking to tackle discrimination against disabled people. [39696]

Mr. Burt: The enactment of the Disability Discrimination Bill will mean that, for the first time, it will be unlawful to discriminate against disabled people in employment, access to goods, services and premises. There will also be a power to set minimum standards of accessibility for public transport vehicles. A national disability council will be created to advise the Government on the elimination of discrimination. The Bill will represent a huge advance for disabled people.

Mr. Banks: I congratulate my hon. Friend and the Government on the Disability Discrimination Bill, which I hope will complete its passage later this week. Does my hon. Friend agree that, now that the parliamentary debate is over, it is time for all of us who represent disabled people and for disabled people themselves to join him in getting on with the Bill's provisions, for the greater good of those who will benefit the most?

Mr. Burt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting matters in such a way. That is absolutely right. There has been dispute, both inside and outside Parliament, about whether the Bill is the right way forward, but now that we have argued and proved our case, we believe that the Bill represents a substantial advance for disabled people. The efforts of all who really care for that should now be put into ensuring that the Bill's implementation goes smoothly and that the provisions that we have introduced, which create substantial new rights for disabled people, work. I will consult extensively on the basis of the new regulations that will make the Bill work to do exactly that.

Mr. Corbett: Will the Minister rethink his original answer, when he claimed that the Bill would outlaw discrimination in employment against people with disabilities? Are not 96 out of every 100 firms employing 20 or fewer staff free to continue discriminating? How can that be progress, when the fastest growth in jobs is among small firms?

Mr. Burt: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman realises, the point is that 80 per cent. of all employees are covered by the Bill. I do not think that any firm, small or otherwise, that discriminates against disabled people is getting a good deal. Disabled workers have an excellent record of both achievement and attendance at work. The new opportunities in employment being opened up to disabled people will make their continued employment even more secure.
There should be no discrimination. The Bill will help to change attitudes, but what it crucially does that other legislation does not do is to recognise the needs of those who will be supplying employment services to disabled people and create a balance between the needs

of those firms and the rightful aspirations and expectations of disabled people. I repeat that 80 per cent. of all employees will be covered by the Bill, which represents the significant advance of which I spoke earlier.

Oral Answers to Questions — DUCHY OF LANCASTER

Deregulation

Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what progress he has to report on his deregulation initiative. [39712]

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Roger Freeman): We are using the powers of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act, which was passed just over a year ago, to repeal unnecessary United Kingdom primary legislation. I am also visiting the Governments of our European Union partners to build a consensus agreement that we should have fewer but better European regulations.

Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government's deregulation measures, pioneered by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, have been a great success? However, is it not true that the desire to regulate still lies deep in the socialist soul and that business men, let alone people going about their daily lives, ignore that fact at their peril?

Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and very much agree with him. Nothing is closer to the desire of all true socialists than the early introduction of the social chapter—which I understand is likely to cost, if fully implemented, about £10 billion a year, in addition to the already sizeable social security budget.

Mr. Skinner: Has not the right hon. Gentleman got a cheek talking about deregulation when sitting next to him is the Deputy Prime Minister, who only a few months ago persuaded the Prime Minister to set up another Government unit with civil servants, with a desk diary of £150,000, with two jobs—Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State—and with a personal hairdresser thrown in? If we are to talk about deregulation, let us start with the Treasury Bench—and the sooner, the better.

Mr. Freeman: My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State is doing an excellent job and will continue to do that job for a long time yet.

Mrs. Lait: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the lottery has had an adverse effect on the betting and gaming industries, especially in tourist towns such as Hastings? What initiatives does he plan to take to level the playing field and deregulate those industries in a responsible manner?

Mr. Freeman: We have already taken a number of steps, principal among which is the order that has been laid before Parliament on the deregulation of off-track greyhound betting. I see that my parliamentary private secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe), is in his place. I do not know whether the House is aware—I was not until earlier today—that he not only owns two greyhounds but has just won the greyhound derby.

Policy Presentation

Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what steps he is taking to improve the presentation of Government policies. [39713]

The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Michael Heseltine): All Ministers must take responsibility for presentation of their Departments' policies. The relevant Cabinet Committee, which I chair, provides a collective forum to discuss presentation.

Mr. Banks: May I say what an excellent job the Deputy Prime Minister is doing in standing in for the Prime Minister? To be fair, it is perhaps not the most intellectually challenging task that he has had to face. I thank him for his great courtesy when he came over to Newham in his capacity as one of the millennium commissioners. I know that he is considering my borough as a site for the millennium exhibition. I am sure that he will use the judgment of Solomon in coming to the right conclusion and ensuring that Newham is chosen. I am not one of those whingers who complains about the squillions that it has cost to set up his Department. I am sure that the taxpayer gets great value for money, and I wish the right hon. Gentleman a very nice day.

The Deputy Prime Minister: The House will recognise new Labour in a new form. If I may so, it is a great improvement on the old version.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that not only is presentation of policy important, but it is important to have the policies there in the first place? To act as a Government involves more than glitzy public relations, red roses and new suits. We need policies that are in the best interests of the British people, not the glitzy PR exercise that we get from the Labour party.

The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The fascinating thing about what is happening throughout the world today is that the entire intellectual debate about how to pursue policies for the next century is conducted from the right of politics.

Mr. Simon Hughes: If the electorate are confused about the Government's attitude on whether the House should be entirely independent, is that the fault of Government policy—which does not say that it is clear, following Nolan, that this place should not be bought—or is it a fault of the presentation of Government policy? Does he agree with his junior Minister, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, that, for the past 150 years, the Government have worked on the assumption that Members of Parliament work part time?

The Deputy Prime Minister: During the whole of the past 150 years, it has depended entirely on whether Members of Parliament were employed as Ministers or as Back Benchers. The fact is that they are two quite different jobs. The House itself is sovereign in these matters, as the hon. Gentleman knows.

Competitiveness White Paper

Mr. Merchant: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what responses the Government have received to their second White Paper on competitiveness. [39714]

The Deputy Prime Minister: The White Paper "Competitiveness: Forging Ahead" has been widely

welcomed by industry. Major representative bodies such as the CBI, the Engineering Employers Federation and the Chemical Industries Association, as well as many major companies, have all expressed their support.

Mr. Merchant: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that an essential condition of enhancing competitiveness is greater investment? What are he and the Government doing to encourage that greater investment, especially in the vital manufacturing industry sector?

The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend gives me the opportunity to reassure him that the Government support very much the point that he has made and are extremely pleased to see that investment intentions in manufacturing for the year ahead are extremely strong. This is in no small measure. due to the fact that we have one of the most exciting economic prospects that I can remember and that the economy is growing faster than most other European economies.

Mr. Prescott: Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that five of the six countries that have leapfrogged Britain in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development world prosperity and competitiveness league since 1979 observe a minimum wage, and that two of them have signed the social chapter? Is this yet another example of Government propaganda being out of line with the facts?

The Deputy Prime Minister: No, the House will recognise that one of the most attractive features of the present economic circumstance is the flow of inward investment coming into this country, not just from Asia or north America but from Europe. One of the reasons it is coming is that the Government are committed to not accepting the increased costs of the social chapter. The House will recognise that the Labour party, if it were ever to become a Government, would immediately undermine Britain's extremely attractive competitive position.

Priorities

Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement about his priorities. [39716]

The Deputy Prime Minister: To promote the competitiveness agenda, the deregulation initiative and the effective administration of the services for which my Department is responsible.

Mr. Arnold: My right hon. Friend will know of the considerable irritation shown by businesses and people about the regulations that pour out in respect of food hygiene and safety. Although the general public support them in principle, the examples in practice cause considerable disquiet. What are the Government doing about it?

The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will know that all those regulations are the subject of review, and many have now been announced as repealed or fit for repeal. More than 530 of the recommendations made by Lord Sainsbury's task force have now been accepted. The House will be fully aware of the work that Frances Maude is now doing. He is in charge of the present task force that advises the Government on further progress.

Mr. Derek Foster: Now that senior Tories admit that the Government have been hijacked by the right, is it not


clear that, just as many Tory Back Benchers will vote tonight to safeguard their financial interests rather than the interests of Parliament, so the Government have abandoned a national interest to govern in the interests of the Conservative party? Have not the Government only one priority: their survival from day to day?

The Deputy. Prime Minister: Those of us who will support what the right hon. Gentleman refers to as the "Government line" will do so because we believe that it is in the best interests of Parliament that the proposals that we put forward should be accepted. We think that the changes in which some Opposition Members believe might result in long-term, permanent damage to the institution of Parliament.

Deregulation

Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many section 1 orders under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 have been laid, and how many are expected to be laid in the next Session of Parliament. [39717]

Mr. Freeman: The Government have laid 13 orders to date, including, for example, measures to assist building societies. Subject to the need not to overload Committees, the Government intend to lay one new order each week while Parliament is sitting and bring measures that help the competitiveness of the United Kingdom economy, especially for smaller enterprises.

Mr. Coombs: May I express some surprise at the novel idea that Committees should not be overloaded? It is a new one on me. Can we not find a way to speed up the rate at which orders are introduced, because they are in the best interests not only of the Government but of people and industry as a whole? What specific orders does my hon. Friend hope to introduce in the next few months?

Mr. Freeman: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field), who chairs the House of Commons Deregulation Committee, which has begun on an excellent footing. I also pay tribute to the Deregulated Powers Scrutiny Committee in the other place, which partly looks after the deregulation orders that we lay. I would encourage trade associations and individual companies, especially small and medium-sized enterprises, to come forward rapidly so that we can consider proposals by them, which might frame orders that we can lay before Parliament to help employment, help lift red tape and bureaucracy from the shoulders of business and industry and therefore increase the competitiveness of the UK economy.

Mr. Pike: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what steps he proposes to take to improve consultation in connection with deregulation proposals. [39718]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service (Mr. John Horam): Consultation takes place on all proposals for deregulation orders. We pay very careful attention to the comments of the Deregulation Committee and the House of Lords Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee as regards the adequacy of consultation in particular cases.

Mr. Pike: s: The Parliamentary Secretary will recognise that, certainly in one case, there has been a lack of consultation in terms of both time and the range of people consulted. Will he ensure that, in future, so that the Deregulation Committee does not waste time and those matters can be dealt with properly, every Department carries out adequate consultation in respect of both time and the range of those consulted?

Mr. Horam: I think that the hon. Gentleman refers to the Deregulation (Sunday Dancing) Order, on which his Committee pronounced today. I believe that the report came out today. We pay great attention to what the Committee and the House of Lords Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee say. The Deregulation (Sunday Dancing) Order is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary,. but I take the point that all Cabinet Ministers and others who present regulation orders should take account of the length of consultation, and I shall ensure that that is done.

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what initiatives he has to formulate further deregulation. [39719]

Mr. Freeman: With the help of the deregulation task force, we continue to identify changes to existing rules and regulations to reduce the burdens that they impose, without removing necessary protections. We want business and industry to identify regulations which they believe need to be simplified or repealed.

Mr. Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, when the rest of the industry competes with the national lottery, it is handicapped by over-regulation? May we have an assurance that it will be allowed to compete on equal terms?

Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for referring to the lottery, which has been an enormous success, and raised well over £1 billion for good causes. As for betting regulations, in April 1995, we relaxed the restrictions on facilities in betting shops. We are now planning to bring forward a deregulation order to allow amusement with prizes machines in betting shops. I hope that that will be welcomed by the industry.

Mr. Flynn: In considering further deregulation, has the Minister read the report of the Transport Select Committee on what have become known as roll-on, roll-over ferries? Is he not concerned at the unanimous view of the Committee that that form of public transport is the only one that does not fail safe, but fails dangerously and lethally? Is it not the case that those ferries do not require to be subject to deregulation but need new regulation to ensure public safety?

Mr. Freeman: The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to comment specifically on ferries, but I agree with him that there are many cases where we need better regulation for the protection of the consumer, the passenger or whoever. I am addressing regulation that is unnecessary, and perhaps outmoded. By lifting that burden from business and industry, we can increase competitiveness.
I will certainly draw the question of the hon. Gentleman to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

Cabinet Office Staff

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what is the current staffing level of the Cabinet Office; and if he will make a statement. [39720]

Mr. Horam: By convention, the Office of Public Service, the Cabinet Office and CCTA, the Government Centre for Information Systems, are treated as one group, and staff currently number 1,298. That includes a large number of functions such as support for the Government Whips Office and the Opposition Whips Office.

Mr. Greenway: Does my hon. Friend accept that the country is deeply impressed by the work of the Cabinet Office, save, in some respects, perhaps for the Opposition Whips Office? There is no doubt, however, that the money spent in the Cabinet Office is well spent, and the country is rightly grateful.

Mr. Horam: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is good to hear those comments. It is also good to notice that the number of staff at the Department has declined since the reshuffle. We are definitely getting value for money.

Mr. MacShane: Has the Parliamentary Secretary read the excellent article by Sarah Hogg in the excellent new magazine "Prospect", in which she reveals that five Cabinet Ministers have no departmental duties, and do not have a job, except to poke their noses into the work of other hard-working Ministers? Would a sensibly run company allow a quarter of its executive board to have no real job but just to mess up other people's jobs? Should not the hon. Gentleman put the aging lion, his boss, out to grass as soon as possible?

Mr. Horam: The lack of departmental responsibilities does not, of course, apply to the Deputy Prime Minister, whose departmental responsibilities we have discussed today. I cannot comment otherwise on Sarah Hogg's article.

Executive Agencies

Mr. Jessel: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what evidence he has of improved efficiency in agencies established under the next steps programme. [39722]

Mr. Horam: The best evidence of agency performance is in their individual annual reports. Overall, agencies achieved 80 per cent. of their targets in 1993–94, and we are working on the 1995 next steps review, which will for the first time show trend data on agencies' performance and the savings from their competing for quality

programmes. Agencies are making a significant contribution to the £544 million savings identified through the Government's competing for quality programme.

Mr. Jessel: As Historic Royal Palaces is an agency in the programme, will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming last week's decision by Hampton Court palace to stop charging the £1.70 entrance fee to the newly restored privy gardens to local residents from Twickenham, Teddington, the Hamptons, Richmond, Kingston and Elmbridge? That decision is the result of three meetings that I was able to convene.

Mr. Horam: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I think that a sensible compromise was reached in that particular case, which was not least due to his magnificent efforts over many months. Given my hon. Friend's interest in musical instruments, he will also have noticed that Hampton Court was used as the backdrop for the Purcell opera that was broadcast on BBC television on Saturday night.

Mr. Connarty: Surely the Parliamentary Secretary cannot be happy with the performance of one agency, the Child Support Agency. The latest report on it shows that in 25 per cent. of cases it failed to get things right, and everyone knows that in 100 per cent. of cases it causes massive distress.

Mr. Horam: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not get in on Social Security questions, which just preceded these. That would have been an appropriate question to ask then.

Visit to Basildon

Mr. Amess: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his visit to Basildon on 3 November. [39724]

The Deputy Prime Minister: As always when I visit Essex, I had a most enjoyable and stimulating visit.

Mr. Amess: Following my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister's highly successful visit to my constituency on Friday, will he join me in congratulating the people from a huge number of businesses who turned up to listen to his speech? Will he congratulate those people on their success in selling their goods and services, throughout not only the United Kingdom but Europe?

The Deputy Prime Minister: I very much support the spirit of what my hon. Friend said. I found in Basildon last Friday a typical example of a very large number of extremely successful companies taking advantage of the economic recovery.

Yitzhak Rabin (Tribute)

The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I am sure that all Members of the House will join me in expressing deep sorrow at the tragic death of Yitzhak Rabin.
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said yesterday, no one has done more for peace in the middle east. Under Rabin's leadership, Israel took the historic decision to pursue land-for-peace and to cease her rule over the Palestinian people. That was a difficult decision, but a right and a brave one. The success of the peace process so far with the Palestinians, and with Israel's neighbours, is very much his achievement and his memorial.
Rabin was a hero for Israel in war and in peace. We join the people of Israel, and Jewish people everywhere, in mourning that great loss.
Britain has every confidence that the peace process will continue under the leadership of Shimon Peres. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary is touring the middle east this week, to reaffirm our support for the peace process and to encourage the countries that he visits to do the same.

Mr. John Prescott: On behalf of the Opposition, I echo the Deputy Prime Minister's words in paying tribute to Yitzhak Rabin.
Yitzhak Rabin was a brave soldier, an outstanding leader and a great statesman. The House extends its condolences to his wife Leah and their family at this time of personal grief, and to the whole Jewish community. We share in the universal shock and disbelief that a man so committed to the cause of peace could be taken from us in such a terrible and violent manner.
Yitzhak Rabin took huge personal and political risks in leading Israel down the path to peace, and he paid the ultimate price; without Yitzhak Rabin, the peace process would not have happened. He was a national hero—trusted, respected and admired. Only Rabin, as a military man, could exchange the battlefield for the conference table. He put away his gun and shook hands with his enemy.
Yitzhak Rabin has laid the foundations for a lasting peace between Israel and her neighbours. There is surely no greater testament to the determination of the peoples of that troubled region to live together than the fact that so many Arab dignitaries were among the world leaders attending his funeral today.
The opportunity for peace in the middle east must not, and will not, be lost because of an assassin's bullet. The world will remember Yitzhak Rabin's last words, at Saturday's rally for peace in Tel Aviv:
I was a military man for 27 years. I waged war as long as there was no chance for peace. I believe there is now a chance for peace, a great chance, and we must take advantage of it".
Israel has lost a distinguished Prime Minister and the world has lost a great worker for peace. May his last words guide those he has left behind and strengthen the peace that he gave his life for.

Sir Edward Heath: I join my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and the

deputy Leader of the Opposition in paying tribute to the late Prime Minister of Israel. I got to know him at the time of the six-day war as a soldier and then during his first period as Prime Minister. He always commanded the utmost respect. One admired his integrity and his straightforwardness and one always knew that one could trust him in what he said. It is a great blow to Israel.
It was Yitzhak Rabin's brilliant service as a soldier that later led him into politics and his experience in war led him to work in such a determined way for peace. There is much to be learned from that: those who have prominent positions in war are not, afterwards, those who want still more war. They are the people who want peace.

Mr. Alex Carlile: On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I should like to add our expression of sorrow and grief at the death of Yitzhak Rabin. He was a man in whom there was the rare union of physical heroism, moral courage and excellent intellectual judgment—a combination rarely found anywhere, let alone in politicians, soldiers and diplomats. Although he was an elderly man when he died, he nevertheless managed to inspire a young generation of Jews, particularly Jews living in Israel. He will be sorely missed on the world and domestic stage.

Mr. Douglas Hurd: Perhaps I may add a word to what has already been, worthily, said. A man of war became a man of peace, not because he lost courage, but because he built a new courage on what he had already achieved. In Israel and in London, I watched Yitzhak Rabin build that new dimension to his life. He kept the directness, the frankness, the self-discipline of a military man, but used those talents for success in peace rather than war. His concern was for Israel's safety, not his own safety.
Although it is nothing to do with me, I hope that there will not be too much investigation into the arrangements for Yitzhak Rabin's personal security. For a democratic politician in such a position, the risks are great. He deliberately and rightly ran those risks—for such men, there is no such thing as total security.
Wars nowadays tend to be quick in their results; they are achieved in days or even hours. Peacemaking is long, slow and tortuous; the peacemakers are open to doubts, criticism and assaults of all kinds, as Yitzhak Rabin found. Those who inherit his task will inherit those risks; they have to carry on where he left off. What has been achieved must not be allowed to unravel. I do not think that there is any single task that is more important in the world today.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I knew Yitzhak Rabin for nearly 30 years and I came to admire and respect his integrity and, at the same time, his flexibility. When, at the beginning of the Palestinian intifada, I suggested to him that the time should come for the Israeli Government to have discussions with the Palestine Liberation Organisation, he at first said that that was not possible. He eventually came to agree that it must be done because, as he said to me when I put the question to him, not only had he never expected the west bank territories that he had conquered as Chief of Staff in 1967 to be retained for a generation by the Israelis, but he did not want those territories to be retained and he did not want his young men in the army to risk their lives to retain them.
Yitzhak Rabin would want two things in particular to be placed on record. First, he was a committed socialist who came up in politics through a left-wing affiliate of the Israeli Labour movement, the Achdut Ha'avoda. He was not a chance soldier who happened into politics; he was a complete politician throughout. Secondly, as he put it to me on a number of occasions, he loathed fundamentalist fanaticism. In the past two days, we have seen that Jewish fundamentalist fanaticism can be as evil as Muslim fundamentalist fanaticism. As a Jew, Rabin always knew and acknowledged that fact.
Those of us who love the state of Israel—and I am one who does—must regard it as our duty to work with the majority of good, decent people in Israel in order to extirpate that fanaticism from their country and restore it to total democracy. I think that Rabin would want that, just as I know that he would want the peace process to be brought to a conclusion.

Mr. Winston Churchill: As one who first met Yitzhak Rabin during the six-day war and later during the Yom Kippur war, I join in the tributes that have been paid to a great Israeli patriot, a distinguished soldier and a great statesman. Valiant in war, he was courageous in peace and, for that, he paid with his life.
Through you, Madam Speaker, we convey to our fellow democracy, the state of Israel, the deep feelings of the entire Parliament and of the nation at what has befallen Israel. As a true democrat, Yitzhak Rabin shunned the added security that is all too often interposed between leaders and the electors and he paid for that risk-taking with his life. The greatest memorial that could be erected to him is the continuation of the peace process, and we wish Shimon Peres, the people of Israel and the people of the middle east well in their endeavour.

Mr. Greville Janner: To us all, Yitzhak Rabin epitomised a great statesman, leader, soldier and champion of peace. But he was much more than that. He fought for a Jewish state before there was one; he was one of the creators of Israel. He led the in-gathering of the exiles, bringing people—the survivors of the Holocaust—into Palestine and then Israel. Some of us remember how lonely the world was for Jewish people when there was no Jewish state. When that state was established, Yitzhak Rabin led its defence again and again.
Yitzhak Rabin's people trusted him, but his vision was not of war but of peace. Those who knew him know that his vision grew with his stature and with time. He believed in peace for the people of Israel within a peaceful middle east and a peaceful world. The people trusted him on the battlefield, and most of them trusted him on the democratic path to peace. They trusted him with their security and that of their families, especially their children. That trust enabled Yitzhak Rabin to bring his nation along the road to peace.
For those of us who knew Yitzhak Rabin, he was a genial companion. To me, he was a model and a hero: a man who symbolised service to his nation, whatever the risk to himself. It is almost exactly a year since I joined him in Oslo, where he received the Nobel peace prize. In a tranquil half hour, he unwound with a series of cigarettes, saying how weary and how tough the trail to peace was, but how he was determined never to leave it.
I know that all hon. Members join me in sending a message of profound sympathy to Leah Rabin and to her family. To our colleagues in the Knesset—because Israel

is one of the rare democracies in that part of the world—to acting Prime Minister Shimon Peres, who now must bear a double burden, and to his wife, Sonia, who knows that the assassin would not have stopped at Rabin if he had had the chance, we say, in the biblical language of Israel, "Anachnu itchem betsara hameshutaf'—we are with you in a sorrow that we all share.

Mr. John Marshall: As chairman of the British-Israel parliamentary group, I should like on behalf of all its members to be associated with the tributes paid to Mr. Rabin.
Since Saturday, the world has been overcome by shock and sadness at the loss of a statesman and a sense of irony that one who sought peace should have been gunned down so brutally.
Yitzhak Rabin's entire life was devoted to the state of Israel. As a young man, he was a member of the Haganah and fought in the war of independence. Subsequently, he was Chief of Staff in 1967. Like Moshe Dayan, the old soldier decided to become a man of peace. He recognised that the only long-term security for Israel lay in the eradication of old bitterness and hatred in the middle east.
The assassination of President Sadat did not derail the peace process between Egypt and Israel. Let us hope that the assassination of Prime Minister Rabin does not derail the peace process in the middle east. The best legacy that he can give the world is the continuation of the peace process.
The world has lost a statesman, Israel has lost a great leader and his family has lost a great man. Our hearts, minds and thoughts are with his family and his people. May God be with them today.

Mr. Doug Hoyle: In joining the tributes to Yitzhak Rabin, I send condolences from the parliamentary Labour party to his widow and family and to all the people of Israel. When I heard the news on Saturday, I was stunned and shocked, as were many people in Britain and throughout the world, that a man who believed in peace as much as Yitzhak did has been taken from us.
As has been said, Yitzhak Rabin was a politician first and a military leader second, but as a great military leader in the eyes of the people of Israel, he led them along the path to peace in a way that no one else could have done. It was not the easiest way to take. As a former soldier, he could no longer foresee that Israel would benefit from continued outbreaks of wars or ever have secure frontiers, so he began to work for peace. Some of what has happened cannot be reversed, but there is still a long way to go.
I hope that, in sending this message to the people of Israel, we inspire all those there who followed the lead of Prime Minister Rabin to redouble their efforts to achieve a peace that will bring security not only to the people of Israel, but to all the Arab states that surround it.

Mr. John Butterfill: Almost all nations have at some time a statesman who can come to their aid in their hour of need, but it is rare for a nation to have someone who did so twice—first as a brilliant soldier defending Israel in the six-day war, and subsequently as a statesman who was able to further the peace process as only he could do. Only he could give his people the reassurance that he knew and understood their defence needs, while recognising—as everybody who has visited Israel recognises—that ultimately Israel can be defended only by reaching peace with its neighbours.
It is a tremendous loss not just for Israel, but for the entire world. I hope that hon. Members will be aware that there is a book of remembrance at the Israeli embassy.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The sense of desolation and horror that was felt on Saturday night by many of us is difficult to convey. Yitzhak Rabin was a man whom I have known for a long time and, although we speak of statesmen, I think of him as a warm, witty and clever man with a strong sense of commitment. He was a man who understood the needs of Israel at every stage of its development; who fought for it when it was necessary to fight; who was a politician when it was necessary to lead; and who, throughout his career, put Israel first.
I send to my colleagues in the Israeli Labour party and the Knesset my deep condolences and my feeling of utter waste. I strongly believe that the values that Yitzhak Rabin fought for and knew to be paramount will not be allowed to be forgotten; and that, in his name, the future will be a peaceful one for Israel. The people, although they know that they have had reason to fear, were well served by a man of imagination and genius, who will be as sadly missed by his family as by his friends.

Mr. Hartley Booth: Many of us have constituents who are now grieving. It is right that we should stand for them and express their grief. Yitzhak Rabin exemplified courage and it is right to praise that. His courage was that of a man who dealt not just with ordinary matters of peace and war, but with deeply entrenched positions that went back centuries. For a man to face those entrenched positions and risk his own life was the epitome of real courage. We praise that in the House today.
When we go back to our constituencies and meet with grief, we should also praise and support the man who will take over from Mr. Rabin, his successor Mr. Peres.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: Yitzhak Rabin was a remarkable man who sought peace and inspired everyone. On behalf of the Scottish National party, I offer our condolences to the people of Israel and the Jewish community throughout the world. Israel's loss is shared by all humanity.

Mr. David Sumberg: On behalf of my constituents of all religious backgrounds and the members of the Manchester Jewish community, I thank my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and all right hon. and hon. Members for their generous tributes to Yitzhak Rabin. He fought for his country's freedom and died for his country's peace.
Will my right hon. Friend convey to the Government and people of Israel the fact that the people whom I have mentioned and, I hope, all Members of the House, stand with them at this tragic time? The country will come through this hour and, as we remember this weekend those who gave their lives for our freedom and our peace, we will remember Yitzhak Rabin, who did the same for the people and the nation of Israel.

Mrs. Barbara Roche: In 1967, I had started my secondary schooling at the Jewish

Free school in Camden Town. I remember the six-day war as a tense period for all of us in the Jewish community, a community of which I am extremely proud to be a part. In our school, there were many children of officials at the embassy of Israel. Many of the older pupils volunteered to fight with the Israeli defence forces, and during those few days we believed that the very existence of Israel was at stake.
I remember what a hero Yitzhak Rabin was to us and to the whole community. At the beginning of the peace process, when we saw the part that he and the Israeli Labour party played in it, my heart and the hearts of many people in the community were full of pride that such events could take place in our lifetime.
My sympathy and the sympathy of many people in my constituency go to Yitzhak Rabin's widow and family. Also, we extend to the Government of Israel our best wishes for the peace process, in the hope that it will continue and succeed. That would be the surest tribute to the memory of a very, very brave man.

Sir Timothy Sainsbury: My many right hon. and hon. Friends who are, like me, members of the Conservative Friends of Israel, would like to be associated with the many eloquent tributes paid by both sides of the House to a most remarkable and brave soldier and statesman. Those of us who had the privilege of meeting, talking with and hearing Yitzhak Rabin were as convinced as I am that, when he committed himself to the peace process, he was seeking—as he did with dedication throughout his life—the security of the state of Israel. The achievement of that security through the peace process must be Yitzhak Rabin's best and most lasting memorial.

Mr. Mike Gapes: Reference has already been made to the many right hon. and hon. Members whose constituents will be grieving at this time. Millions of people all over the world will be extremely sad at the events of the weekend.
I met Mr. Rabin in 1991, when the Labour party in Israel was in opposition. I was struck by his total honesty and resilience. The best testimony, and our best hope for the future, is to redouble our efforts in supporting internationally Mr. Rabin's successor and fellow Nobel peace prize winner, Shimon Peres, the people of Israel and the Palestinians in continuing the process of negotiation, dialogue and, we hope, achieving a lasting peace.

Mr. Stuart Bell: The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) referred to Yitzhak Rabin's earlier premiership. My recollection of him goes back to that time, and to his resignation in 1977 over a non-event. Yitzhak Rabin might have retired from politics at that time. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said, Mr. Rabin had a strong political will, founded on his socialist faith. He also had a strong belief in his country. He made the long trek through the political wilderness until he reached the premiership again, in 1992.
The right hon. Member for Hove (Sir T. Sainsbury) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) mentioned the impression that Mr. Rabin made on those who met him. I remember a conversation that I had with Yitzhak Rabin in 1991, when Scud missiles were falling on Tel Aviv. Mr. Rabin told me of a visit that he had made to Denmark and to the castle of Elsinore—made famous by Shakespeare's "Hamlet" and built to withstand


invasions from Sweden, just across the water. Yitzhak Rabin asked his Danish friends, "How long were you at war with Sweden?" They answered, "One hundred years." Yitzhak Rabin knew that it would be a long haul to peace in the middle east, but he knew also that if a journey begins with a single step, the journey to peace had to begin with a single stride.
The hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) mentioned that Israel is a democracy. From this democracy and the mother of Parliaments should go the message to Israel that we support her peace process, democracy and people.

Standards in Public Life

Madam Speaker: We now come to motion Nos. 1 to 4 on the Order Paper which, for the convenience of the House, will be debated together with the amendments that have been selected.
As a number of right hon. and hon. Members wish to speak, I shall have to limit the speeches of Back Benchers to 10 minutes.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Motion No. 1, on the conduct of right hon. and hon. Members, is basically non-controversial, but there is a possible ambiguity in its wording. I have offered a manuscript amendment, but that is not the best way of dealing with the matter. If there is any doubt about the wording of motion No. 1, perhaps sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) might come after the words "House shall". That would clear away any possible ambiguity.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman wrote to me earlier and I have responded to do him, but, of course, he can refer to that matter in the debate—I believe that he wants to be called in the debate. He can make suggestions to me if he wishes, but he knows that I have not selected his manuscript amendment.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wonder whether I can raise another matter, because the Deputy Prime Minister is here today. It is a matter that I have raised on the Floor with you on a previous occasion, and I believe that it is important for the House of Commons.
You will recall that, on 24 October, I raised with you a question about the difficulties that are being experienced by hon. Members when tabling questions to the Deputy Prime Minister. I wonder whether you have had time during the recent week and a half to consider Hansard of 16 October, when the Deputy Prime Minister answered questions from hon. Members. You will notice from the questions that were tabled and the answers that were given, and recognising the responsibilities of the Deputy Prime Minister, that he has responsibility for deregulation, the civil service and market testing. Yet he was answering questions on the EEC budget; he was asked a question about social democracy; he answered questions on the obligations of various European states under European treaties; he also answered a question—

Madam Speaker: Order. I have the gist of what the hon. Gentleman is saying. It is not a question, but it is a point of order. I also recall inviting him to write to me about that matter. To the best of my knowledge, and I think that I am correct, I have not yet had a letter from him. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman, because of the limited time that we have in the debate, will be good enough to come to his point of order, so that I might be helpful.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I would like you, Madam Speaker, to compare those and other answers that were given by the Deputy Prime Minister with the answers given by his ministerial colleagues, which are specific to questions that are raised by Members of the House of Commons. What I am asking is whether you, in a ruling, will be able to consider the whole matter of what


questions are accepted by the Table Office, while recognising that departmental officials can block those questions after they have been tabled by Members.
If a Minister of the Crown is answering more widely than the questions that have been asked and, indeed, is prepared to accept supplementaries that bear very little relationship to the questions that have been tabled, surely we as Members should have the right to table wider questions, particularly as the right hon. Gentleman insists on calling himself the Deputy Prime Minister of this country.

Madam Speaker: I believe that there is some concern about that matter.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: A lot of concern.

Madam Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman says, a lot of concern. If that is the case, it is obviously a matter for the Procedure Committee. The hon. Gentleman did not write to me, as I invited him to do some time ago. He might set out the matter to the Procedure Committee so that it might look at it if he is not satisfied.

Sir Teddy Taylor: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. To assist me and possibly others in determining how to vote, could you say whether, in the event of the official Opposition amendment calling for early disclosure being defeated, you would give consideration to a vote on one of two amendments, one of which is in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham), which would call for disclosure after the next election? It would be very helpful to know whether it would be your intention to consider this—

Madam Speaker: What is the amendment number?

Sir Teddy Taylor: Amendment (c), Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman cannot mean amendment (c).
Let me put this to the House. There are too many possible permutations for me to say at this stage which amendments will be called for Division purposes—particularly when hon. Members do not give me the number of the amendment. If some amendments are successful, others, logically, will fall, and similarly if some amendments are unsuccessful, other amendments will be called for Division. I cannot at this stage, without even being given the number of the amendment, say whether or not it will be called.

Sir Teddy Taylor: It is amendment (c) to motion No. 3, Madam Speaker. I am so sorry. It seems to me that there is a choice—

Madam Speaker: What is the amendment number?

Sir Teddy Taylor: Amendment (c) to motion No. 3, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East.

Madam Speaker: It is not selected.

Sir Teddy Taylor: So it will not be voted on—

Madam Speaker: The list of amendments is in both Lobbies. I suggest that hon. Members go and look at the list.

Mr. David Shaw: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. According to column 522 of Hansard, on Friday

the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) mentioned my constituency without giving me notice. A notice about the issue was put on the Notice Board today, rather than on Friday. The hon. Member for Barking has a reputation for aiding and abetting child abuse; will you, Madam Speaker, stop her from abusing Members of Parliament? [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. I shall ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the remark that he has just made; otherwise I shall use the Standing Order that is available to me.

Mr. Shaw: I was referring, Madam Speaker, to the hon. Lady's reputation outside the House of Commons—

Madam Speaker: Order.

Mr. Shaw: rose—

Madam Speaker: Sit down. I shall give the hon. Gentleman one more opportunity: he will withdraw the charge that he has just made in relation to the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge), or I shall use the Standing Order.

Mr. Shaw: I made no charge, but I shall, if necessary, withdraw—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will resume his seat. I am seeking an immediate withdrawal.

Mr. Shaw: I must withdraw, then, what I said earlier about the fact that the hon. Lady has a reputation outside the Chamber—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will apologise properly. I have given him three chances. He must stand up and apologise to me, and to the House.

Mr. Shaw: I have withdrawn the comments that I made earlier, Madam Speaker, which were repeated outside the Chamber.

Madam Speaker: I shall not accept the point of order originally raised by the hon. Gentleman until I see the letter that he committed himself to writing to me some days ago. I believe that it was handed to my secretary at 3.40 pm today, and I have not yet had an opportunity to see it.

Mr. Denis MacShane: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your guidance on an entirely different matter.
The House has just paid tribute to Yitzhak Rabin, very movingly, and has spoken for the whole nation. Three hours ago, hon. Members on both sides of the House attended the funeral at Westminster cathedral of Derek Enright, the Member of Parliament for Hemsworth. Your Deputy paid a warm and wonderful tribute to him during the ceremony.
As a relatively new Member, Madam Speaker, may I ask whether you can—either on your own authority or in conjunction with the usual channels—find a mechanism to allow the House, without entering into a lengthy debate, to pay tribute to one of its Members who dies? The tribute would then appear in Hansard and would enter into the records of the House; it could be read by the Member's family, friends and colleagues.
I was slightly dismayed last week by the fairly curt announcement that was made—although that was not your fault, Madam Speaker—and by the fact that hon.


Members could not pay tribute to one of their number who had passed on. I wonder whether, under the appropriate procedures—

Madam Speaker: Order. I have got the point. I am enormously sympathetic, but the matter was considered quite recently, and I determined that we should continue with the type of tribute that we have. It is quite important for us to have the tribute that is paid by the Chair when the death of a Member takes place.

Mr. David Wilshire: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I return to the subject of this afternoon's debate? I entirely understand your point about not being able to give guidance at this stage, but, as you know, we are to have a free vote. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It will be for me; I cannot speak for anyone else.
Normally, Back Benchers such as me leave the sorting out of procedure to the great and the good, but in the event of a free vote those opportunities are not available to us. Before we vote, Madam Speaker, will you be able to explain to people such as me exactly what we are supposed to be doing?

Madam Speaker: Absolutely. When the time comes and the Divisions take place, I shall call out the numbers of the amendments so that every hon. Member knows precisely what Question is being put.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Perhaps I may refer to what happened a few moments ago. Once again the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) has accused a Member of the House of a criminal offence—

Madam Speaker: Order. I have dealt with that matter.

Mr. Bermingham: There has been no apology.

Madam Speaker: Order. There was an apology. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Order. I have accepted the withdrawal by the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw). I shall deal with other matters in relation to the hon. Gentleman as soon as I see his letter.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: Further to the points of order by my hon. Friends the Members for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) and for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), Madam Speaker. Although the amendment in my name and that of my hon. Friends the Members for Southend, East and for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) will not be called, if the vote for immediate disclosure is not successful, will there be an opportunity to vote on amendment (j) in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne, which calls for disclosure in the next Parliament?

Madam Speaker: Is that amendment (j) to motion No. 2?

Mr. Thurnham: Yes, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: If amendments (b) and (g) are agreed to, (j) will fall. If amendment (b) is not agreed to, amendment (j) will be put. I cannot now go through the entire list. Other hon. Members have accepted that I will take them through and give them guidance before they vote.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is this a satisfactory way to decide who in some instances shall be a Member

of the House? Is not the matter of wider interest to the country as a whole, and ought it not to be dealt with by legislation analogous to the Representation of the People Act 1991?

Madam Speaker: Order. That is not a matter for me: it is a matter for the Government. I think that the House now wishes to proceed to this important debate.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Has any Minister sought to make a statement this afternoon or at any time today about the extraordinary events that came to light over the weekend concerning the general practitioners' contract and its impact in Presteigne? Those events concern the removal for the first time in British history of patients from a GP's list for financial reasons. The doctor has been honest enough to say that he has removed a family, Mr. and Mrs. Venables and their children, from the GP's list of his practice for purely financial reasons.

Madam Speaker: The answer is no. If there were to be a statement, we would all know about it because it would be on the annunciator.

Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. If on motion No. 2, amendment (b), which is to do with proposed agreements, is passed and amendment (g) fails, will it be possible to call amendment (j)? What is the time limit for the debate?

Madam Speaker: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave earlier, when I said that there were far too many possible permutations for me to say at this stage which amendments would be called for Division. Of course, I shall carefully lead the House through the amendments before each Division.

Ms Harriet Harman: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Has the Secretary of State for Health made a request to make a statement about the GP in Bracknell who has written to women patients saying that they need screening for cervical cancer once every three years? They can get it on the NHS only once every five years and he is recommending that they go private—

Madam Speaker: Order. Let me make it quite clear that no Minister has said to me that he is anxious to make a statement today on any subject. I am anxious to proceed to this important debate.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I beg to move,
That the Resolution of the House of 15th July 1947 relating to Privileges shall be amended by adding at the end the words—
`and that in particular no Member of the House shall, in consideration of any remuneration, fee, payment, reward or benefit in kind, direct or indirect, which the Member or any member of his or her family has received is receiving or expects to receive—

(i) advocate or initiate any cause or matter on behalf of any outside body or individual, or
(ii) urge any other Member of either House of Parliament, including Ministers, to do so,
by means of any speech, Question, Motion, introduction of a Bill or amendment to a Motion or Bill'.

Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following motions:

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENTS

That—

(1) with effect from Wednesday 15th November 1995, any Member proposing to enter into an agreement which involves the provision of services in his capacity as a Member of Parliament shall conclude such an agreement only if it conforms to the Resolution of the House of 6th November 1995 relating to Conduct of Members; and that a copy of any such agreement, excluding the amount of any fee or benefit payable, shall be deposited with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards at the same time as it is registered in the Register of Members' Interests;

(2) any Member who has an existing agreement involving the provision of services in his capacity as a Member of Parliament which conforms to the Resolution of the House of 6th November 1995 relating to Conduct of Members, but which is not in written form, shall take steps to put the agreement into written form; and that no later than 31st March 1996 a copy of any such agreement, excluding the amount of any fee or benefit payable, shall be deposited with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and registered in the Register of Members' Interests; and

(3) any Member who has an existing agreement which does not conform to the Resolution of the House on 6th November 1995 relating to Conduct of Members shall, by 31st March 1996, either redraw the agreement so that it conforms to the said Resolution or withdraw from the agreement; and that a copy of any such redrawn agreement, excluding the amount of any fee or benefit payable, shall be deposited with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and registered in the Register of Members' Interests by that date.

And the following amendments thereto: (b), in line 6, leave out from `a' to `shall' in line 7 and insert
`full copy of any such agreement including the fees or benefits payable in bands of: up to £1,000, £1,000–£5,000, £5,000–£10,000, and thereafter in bands of £5,000'.
(c), in line 7, leave out
`excluding the amount of any fee or benefit payable'.
(d), in line 7, leave out 'excluding' and insert 'including'.
(e), in line 8, after `Standards', insert
`and made available to the public'.
(f), in line 9, at end insert
`and made available for inspection by the public'.
(g), in line 14, leave out from `a' to `shall' in line 16 and insert
`full copy of any such agreement including the fees for or benefits payable in bands of: up to £1,000, £1,000–5,000, £5,000–£10,000, and thereafter in bands of £5,000.'.
(h), in line 15, leave out
'excluding the amount of any fee or benefit payable'.
(i), in line 17, after Interests', insert
'and made available for inspection by the public'.
(k), in line 22, leave out from `a' to `shall' in line 23 and insert
'full copy of any such agreement including the fees or benefits payable in bands of: up to £1,000, £1,000–£5,000, £5,000–£10,000, and thereafter in bands of £5,000.'.
(l), in line 22, leave out
excluding the amount of any fee or benefit payable'.
(m), in line 24, at end add
and made available for inspection by the public'.

(j), in line 17, after 'and', insert
`provided that from the start of the next Parliament the amount of any such fee or benefit payable shall be disclosed to the Commissioner and made available to the public; and'.
(o), in line 24, at end add
`provided that from the start of the next Parliament the amount of any such fee or benefit payable shall be disclosed to the Commissioner and made available to the public'.
(n), in line 24, at end add
`(4) any Member who enters into employment agreements of whatever kind, whether relating to the provision of services in his capacity as a Member of Parliament or otherwise, shall be required to disclose in the Register of Members' Interests—
1. The total fees or benefits from such agreements in bands of up to £1,000, £1,000–£5,000, £5,000–£10,000 and thereafter in bands of £5,000.
2. The total amount of time, in days or parts thereof, devoted to the fulfilment of such agreements.'.
(p), in line 24, at end add
`(4) notwithstanding the provisions of paragraphs 1–3 of this Resolution with effect from Wednesday 15th November 1995, no Member shall enter into an agreement for the provision of services in his/her capacity as a Member of Parliament with any individual or organisation engaged in lobbying or public relations on behalf of more than one client.'.

STANDARDS IN PUBLIC LIFE (GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS)

That this House agrees with the recommendations in the Second Report from the Select Committee on Standards in Public Life (House of Commons Paper No. 816) relating to—

(1) the recording of deputations in the Register of Members' Interests (paragraph 31); and
(2) the cessation of paid advocacy (paragraph 54).

And the following amendments thereto:
(a), in line 4, leave out paragraph (1).
(b), in line 6, at end add
'and further that a Member with a paid interest should not initiate or participate in, including attendance, a delegation where the problem affects only the body from which he has a paid interest.'.

(d), in line 6, at end add
`and further that a Member with a paid interest should not engage in correspondence about a subject which affects only the body from which he has a paid interest.'.

STANDARDS AND PRIVILEGES

That—

(1) Standing Order No. 128 (Select Committee on Members' Interests) be repealed;
(2) Standing Order No. 121 (Committee of Privileges) be repealed when the Committee of Privileges shall have reported to the House in respect of the matters of the complaints referred to it; and
(3) Standing Orders (Committee on Standards and Privileges) and (Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards) below be made.

Standing Order (Committee on Standards and Privileges)

(1) There shall be a select committee, called the Committee on Standards and Privileges—

(a) to consider specific matters relating to privileges referred to it by the House;
(b) to oversee the work of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards; to examine the arrangements proposed by the Commissioner for the compilation, maintenance and accessibility of the Register of Members' Interests and any other registers of interest established by the House; to review from time to time the form and content of those registers;


and to consider any specific complaints made in relation to the registering or declaring of interests referred to it by the Commissioner; and
(c) to consider any matter relating to the conduct of Members, including specific complaints in relation to alleged breaches in any code of conduct to which the House has agreed and which have been drawn to the committee's attention by the Commissioner; and to recommend any modifications to such code of conduct as may from time to time appear to be necessary.
(2) The committee shall consist of eleven Members, of whom five shall be a quorum.
(3) Unless the House otherwise orders, each Member nominated to the committee shall continue to be a member of it for the remainder of the Parliament.
(4) The committee shall have power to appoint sub-committees consisting of no more than seven Members, of whom three shall be a quorum, and to refer to such sub-committees any of the matters referred to the committee; and shall appoint one such sub-committee to receive reports from the Commissioner relating to investigations into specific complaints.
(5) The committee and any sub-committee shall have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place, to report from time to time and to appoint specialist advisers either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the committee's order of reference.
(6) The committee shall have power to order the attendance of any Member before the committee or any sub-committee and to require that specific documents or records in the possession of a Member relating to its inquiries, or to the inquiries of a sub-committee or of the Commissioner, be laid before the committee or any sub-committee.
(7) The committee shall have power to refuse to allow proceedings to which strangers are admitted to be broadcast.
(8) Mr. Attorney General, the Lord Advocate, Mr. Solicitor General and Mr. Solicitor General for Scotland, being Members of the House, may attend the committee or any sub-committee, may take part in deliberations, may receive committee or sub-committee papers and may give such other assistance to the committee or sub-committee as may be appropriate, but shall not vote or make any motion or move any amendment.

Standing Order (Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards)

(1) There shall be an officer of this House, called the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, who shall be appointed by the House.
(2) The principal duties of the Commissioner shall be—

(a) to maintain the Register of Members' Interests and any other registers of interest established by the House, and to make such arrangements for the compilation, maintenance and accessibility of those registers as are approved by the Committee on Standards and Privileges or an appropriate sub-committee thereof;
(b) to provide advice confidentially to Members and other persons or bodies subject to registration on matters relating to the registration of individual interests;
(c) to advise the Committee on Standards and Privileges, its sub-committees and individual Members on the interpretation of any code of conduct to which the House has agreed and on questions of propriety;
(d) to monitor the operation of such code and registers, and to make recommendations thereon to the Committee on Standards and Privileges or an appropriate sub-committee thereof; and
(e) to receive and, if he thinks fit, investigate specific complaints from Members and from members of the public in respect of—

(i) the registration or declaration of interests, or
(ii) other aspects of the propriety of a Member's conduct,
and to report to the Committee on Standards and Privileges or to an appropriate sub-committee thereof.
(3) The Commissioner may be dismissed by resolution of the House.

And the following amendment thereto:
(a), in line 49, leave out paragraph (7).

Mr. Newton: As you have said, Madam Speaker, a number of other motions and an almost infinite number of amendments may be discussed with motion No. 1.
The report that the House is considering completes the work of the Select Committee on Standards in Public Life, which I chaired. Our remit was
to consider the first report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life in so far as it relates to the rules and procedures of the House; to advise on how the recommendations relating thereto might be clarified and implemented; and to recommend specific resolutions for decision by the House.
Although the focus in recent weeks has understandably been on the issues contained in our second report, I should briefly remind the House and people outside of the important progress that has already been made. The House has already agreed to create a new Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards working within a new Select Committee on Standards and Privileges. It has further strengthened the declaration rules by requiring that relevant interests should be indicated on the Order Paper in relation to questions, amendments and early-day motions, and it has endorsed the proposal that a new code of conduct should be drawn up by the new Committee and put before the House.
Further steps in the implementation of those measures will, of course, be taken today, if the House agrees the order of reference for the new Select Committee contained in motion 4, to which I shall return, and a separate motion that the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) will move later on behalf of the House of Commons Commission concerning the appointment of a new commissioner.
Those are all important steps that have already carried the House a long way forward in responding to Nolan. In July, however, the House also accepted the Select Committee's view that more work was required before the House could take decisions in the matter of what should and should not be allowed, and the extent to which what is allowed should be disclosed. It gave the Committee a further remit, now discharged in our second report, to bring forward proposals by the end of the present Session.
In seeking to meet that tight deadline, the Select Committee has met 25 times since 19 July and a total of 39 times since it was formally established on 13 June. I am told and can well believe, as I dare say can the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), that no Select Committee has met as frequently and I pay tribute, briefly and wholeheartedly, to its members, of whom I see two close in front of me, for the time and commitment that they have given to producing both reports.
Especially in view of the fact that we have some disagreements, I want to express my appreciation for the way in which the Select Committee has worked—I am grateful to see the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) nodding. Even in the relatively few areas where there were disagreements—clearly we shall come to them and some are reflected in the amendments in the name of the hon. Member for


Dewsbury—the Committee always addressed its task in a positive and constructive manner, which made my job as chairman infinitely easier.

Mr. Max Madden: In all those Select Committee deliberations, did it deal with a problem that it has faced ever since resolutions were introduced in the House on these matters: the refusal of admittedly a tiny minority to comply with any of the resolutions? What effective sanctions will be put in place for those hon. Members who raise two fingers to these Standing Orders?

Mr. Newton: It would be right to say that the Select Committee had quite enough to think about without devoting a great deal of time to that matter, but I think that the position is familiar to the House from episodes in the past and even from hypothetical episodes, as it were. Manifestly, it would be a matter for the House. Under the new structure, one would imagine that there would be a complaint to the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, which would examine it, as the Privileges Committee examined the complaint concerning so-called "cash for questions", and make a recommendation for the House, and that it would be up to the House to decide what, if anything, to do.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the Leader of the House give way?

Mr. Newton: I will do so, but it is important that I should leave plenty of time for other hon. Members to speak in the debate and put my points in a connected way.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Does the Leader of the House believe that Members of Parliament should have the right to arrange meetings with Ministers and perhaps attend those meetings in return for a fee or reward?

Mr. Newton: In a way, the hon. Gentleman underlines my point in my initial response to him, as I shall come to that matter later in my speech. It is covered by one of the motions and by one of the hon. Member for Dewsbury's amendments. Perhaps, therefore, I might turn to the motions on the Order Paper.
The first motion is perhaps the most significant—in my view, it is very significant. In our first report, we set out some of the problems inherent in seeking, as Nolan had recommended, to distinguish one type of paid outside interest from another. We pointed especially to the definitional problems associated with the concept of multi-client organisations and with terms such as "lobbying firms" and "parliamentary services". The debate on 19 July and our further deliberations have served only to reinforce those concerns. In the end, it was the Select Committee's unanimous view that those definitional problems were critical and that the difficulties in overcoming them were simply too great.
Instead—and again I emphasise that it is a unanimous recommendation—we have adopted an alternative approach which goes significantly further than that proposed by Nolan in dealing with those actions by hon. Members which, in the Committee's view, should not be permitted, irrespective of the person or organisation from which an hon. Member is receiving money. At the simplest level, that means whether it is a multi-client organisation, a single-client organisation or a single client.
In effect, we brought forward the work originally identified for the new Select Committee in the next Session and reviewed the current 1947 resolution—of which I suspect many hon. Members were unaware before Nolan reminded us of it, and which, as Nolan said, has given rise to confusion when read alongside other resolutions that the House has passed.

Mr. Marlow: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Newton: I will, but I ask my hon. Friend to bear in mind what I said earlier.

Mr. Marlow: I do not want to be controversial, but because of the way that the first resolution is written it appears that, for example, a farmer who is in receipt of money from Brussels through the common agricultural policy would not be able to discuss agricultural policy with the National Farmers Union and then engage in debate in this House. That is one example, but many others flow from the resolution. I believe that it is far more far-reaching than my right hon. Friend thinks. Will he consider that matter very deeply before he replies to the debate?

Mr. Newton: Of course I will consider that matter and others. However, I must make the point—and I believe that I carry the hon. Member for Dewsbury with me—that while the report repeatedly says that we have not been able to deal with every conceivable question and issue that might arise—and there may well be a need for further guidance from the new Select Committee—I think—

Mr. Budgen: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Newton: May I at least first complete my answer to the last intervention?
I believe that I can say reasonably authoritatively that what the Committee was concerned with, and what it believed the proposed resolution to be directed at, is the question of payment by someone in respect of an interest, not in respect of an interest that someone has through his own employment or occupation. None of us would envisage that, for example, a farmer would be prohibited from saying anything on agricultural policy—although, having declared the interest, he may wish to choose his words carefully, as I am sure hon. Members do at present.

Mr. Budgen: Does my right hon. Friend agree that his answer clearly shows that making very important decisions by way of motion is unsatisfactory? It leaves the various guidelines extremely uncertain with, perhaps, matters then being decided on a more or less political basis by a Committee of this House. It is an unsatisfactory way to deal with something that should be dealt with by legislation.

Mr. Newton: I understand my hon. Friend's point, but I have to tell him straightforwardly that I do not agree with him. At some stage, we may need to consider whether some sort of legislation is required, but quite frankly an attempt to deal with all the problems that Nolan wrestled with, that the Committee has wrestled with and that the new Select Committee will find itself wrestling with from time to time by defining and tying up everything in an Act of Parliament or a set of regulations would be a prescription for disaster. What we have proposed will enable the House to operate with a degree of flexibility in certain circumstances, not all of which can be foreseen.

Mr. Tony Banks: rose—

Mr. Newton: If I continue to give way, there will be hardly any time for others to speak. Hon. Members are aware that usually I am very generous at giving way. However, on this occasion I beg them to recognise that we have three hours for a very important debate. It is important that a connected case should be made and hon. Members then have an opportunity to make their points.

Mr. Banks: I am deeply grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I need to ask him a question.

Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. My right hon. Friend said that he is constrained because we have only three hours for debate. If the mood of the House is that the debate should be longer, what can the House do about it? It is not enough time.

Madam Speaker: The motion was placed on the Order Paper on Friday. The hon. Gentleman and others should have been in the House on Friday to object to it if they wanted more time today.

Mr. Banks: Will the Leader of the House explain what my situation would be? I receive support from the International Fund for Animal Welfare, in respect of which I employ an additional member of staff. If I continue to do so, would I be prevented by the amendment to the 1947 resolution from initiating debates, asking—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] Conservative Members should shut up a minute and let me hear it from the Leader of the House. Would I be prevented from asking questions and introducing Bills or early-day motions? It is crucial to me to know the answer to that question.

Mr. Newton: If the hon. Gentleman were receiving payment, or a benefit in kind such as the provision of payment for a research assistant, the answer to his question would be yes.

Mr. Alex Salmond: rose—

Mr. Newton: This must be the last intervention.

Mr. Salmond: Before the Leader of the House moves from that point, could he explain further to the House why he and the Select Committee found it impossible to define and act upon one of the strongest Nolan recommendations, that against multi-client organisations, when the Committee decided to pursue the distinction between advocacy and advice, which seems to everybody to be fraught with great difficulties of definition?

Mr. Newton: I shall make two brief points. First, as we said in our first report, in paragraphs that are reproduced in the second report, the concept of multi-client lobbying organisations is riddled with difficulties of definition. What is lobbying? That is not as easy as it seems, because lobbying, in a sense, is a basic part of all democratic politics.
Secondly, the Nolan report acknowledged that the matter raised questions about almost every large firm—public relations firms, law firms, accountancy firms and management consultants—and suggested some possible Chinese walls to be erected within firms which did not seem to us to be practicable. That is the main point that I would make. If I may generalise from that point, while, of course, there are definitional problems with what we have proposed—as there would be with any solution—

there are, in my judgment, significantly fewer definitional problems with what we have proposed than there would have been with the endless series of distinctions entailed by the Nolan recommendations.

Mr. Roger Sims: rose—

Mr. Newton: I have already said that I have given way for the last time. This really will have to be the last time.

Mr. Sims: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. He will know that I raised a point on Thursday which he said that he would clarify today. He has not allayed my concerns. In its report, the Select Committee states:
We are not … seeking to deprive the House of well-informed contributions from Members with experience or knowledge of direct value to the subject being debated.
Is it not clear from what my right hon. Friend has just said that any Members with specialist knowledge cannot make such contributions if they are in receipt of any payment, be it from a trade association, a trade union, or, indeed, a campaigning organisation? That would restrict the ability of Members of Parliament to speak.

Mr. Newton: I have the very greatest respect for my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims), as he well knows from our contacts on a variety of matters. He reinforces the point that I made about interventions. I would have come to his point if I had not been diverted by so many interventions. I make no great complaint about that; then again, perhaps I do.
Our proposal is that the 1947 resolution should be extended to indicate specific kinds of parliamentary action which ought not to be undertaken for payment on behalf of outside bodies. These are advocacy by way of speech, question, motion, introduction of Bill or amendments to a motion or Bill. Nor should it be acceptable for one Member to encourage another to take those actions on his or her behalf—in other words, indirect advocacy in relation to payment. Benefit in kind is to be treated in the same way as cash. That covers the case of the research assistant of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). Payments to a Member's family are to be treated in the same way as those to a Member.
This is a major extension of our rules. I do not disguise that. Everyone is aware of it—increasingly so, I think. The House will expect me to say a little more about what the Committee sees as the practical implications.
The key to our approach is that Members should not be paid to initiate parliamentary proceedings or initiate them on behalf of clients to whom they are paid advisers. In other words, they should not advocate in Parliament the cause of outside interests from which they receive remuneration.
I now come to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst. This may reassure the hon. Member for Newham, North-West as well. As Lord Nolan's report said, there will be a natural tendency for hon. Members to advise outside bodies whose views, to a large extent, they share. For that reason, the prohibition on questions, motions and Bills applies only
if they relate specifically and directly to the affairs and interests of that body.
However, we were concerned that such a prohibition should not prevent contributions from being made to debate by hon. Members bringing the knowledge and experience gained by legitimate work as paid advisers, or in any other way.
For that reason, in relation to speeches, we have advised that it should remain entirely acceptable for hon. Members to speak during debates on a matter that affects the interests of an outside body with which they have a paid connection so long as they do not initiate such a debate and, as now, fully declare their interest when they speak. The report also says that, in such circumstances, the hon. Member will need to take care that his or her speech does not
bring particular benefit to the organisation or individual from which the Member received payment.
I hope that that explanation is at least some help to my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst.
As our report acknowledges, this is clearly not a matter in which it is possible to lay down detailed prescriptive rules for every circumstance. We have provided a framework within which a body of experience and practice can be built up. If the House agrees to our recommendations on the broad way forward, the interpretation of the new rules in particular circumstances would inevitably be a matter for the new Select Committee, with the advice of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. It will no doubt issue further guidance if it sees the need.
For the moment, I shall pass by motion No. 2, which is the most controversial, and deal with motion No. 3 on delegations arranged by hon. Members with Ministers, and the timing of the ban on advocacy to which I have just referred.

Mr. Sims: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his explanation. Although I understand the argument that hon. Members should not initiate proceedings, surely the word "advocate" means to speak in support of. To include the words "advocate" and "speech " in the resolution makes it appear to anyone reading it that an hon. Member may not speak in support of a cause for which he or she is being paid.

Mr. Newton: I assure my hon. Friend that that was not what the committee wished; nor is it what the committee regards the proposed resolution as meaning.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. If someone passes a motion in the House, what holds: the wording in the motion; or the intended meaning of the motion, as explained during the debate while that motion is taking place?

Madam Speaker: All hon. Members of common sense will read carefully what the Leader of the House is saying as well as take into account the motion on the Order Paper. Ultimately, many of the resolutions, motions and amendments passed today may have to go to the special Select Committee for implementation.

Mr. Newton: I am grateful to you, Madam Speaker, for that explanation. That is, indeed, the position.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: Will the Leader of the House confirm that the motion that he puts to the House today reiterates the existing 1947 resolution, which of itself bans paid advocacy—speaking for money—and that our extension of that resolution seeks to be more specific and illustrate the circumstances in which such a ban might operate?

Mr. Newton: That is absolutely right, and I am grateful to the hon. Lady.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst will acknowledge that I am explaining, as faithfully as I can, what was in the Committee's mind. I am sure that the indications that we have given will be taken into account by the new Select Committee in its interpretation. After all, it will be a body of Members of this House who will have listened to the debate and read our report. I give him the clear assurance that our proposals are not intended to prevent Members from speaking in a proper and balanced way, as I have outlined.
As for motion No. 3, the Select Committee recommended that where a Member leads a deputation to a Minister or official on behalf of a paid outside interest, that visit should be registered in the Register of Members' Interests to ensure maximum transparency. A minority on the Committee wished to ban Members from leading delegations, or arranging them where there was a paid outside interest.
That view will no doubt be reflected by the hon. Member for Dewsbury in one of the amendments that she has tabled. I can only say that it seemed to the majority of the Committee that the key safeguard was transparency, and that there would be no real gain—and possibly some loss to the taking of well-informed decisions—if Members who are paid advisers could not even seek to arrange a meeting, openly declared, in which points of concern could be put to Ministers.
The second element of the motion relates to the timing of the cessation of the paid advocacy. If I may, it seems sensible to return to that when I come to discuss the more controversial motion No. 2.
Before that, however, I should refer to motion No. 4, which, as I said earlier, proposes an order of reference for the new Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, and provides for the winding up of the Select Committees on Members' Interests and Privileges. If I say relatively little about that, it is simply because the matter was extensively covered in our July debate. The motion is closely based on the recommendations of our first report.
There is one significant point that I should make about the two existing Select Committees which the new Committee is intended to replace—I say it particularly with an eye on members of the Committee on Privileges. Given that the Privileges Committee is in mid-inquiry, the motion envisages that it should continue alongside the new Committee until that inquiry has been completed. I know that members of the Privileges Committee attach importance to that undertaking, so I should like to emphasise it.
The demise of the Select Committee on Members' Interests would be immediate—I am not sure how much regretted its passing will be by its members—and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) and his Committee for the work that they have done for us over the years.
I return to motion No. 2 on the Order Paper. I address first the issues on which the Select Committee was unanimous. The Committee was unanimous that, as Nolan had recommended, all agreements relating to parliamentary activities should be put in writing and deposited with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards so that he could ensure that they were wholly within the new rules banning paid advocacy.
We accepted the Nolan recommendation that there was no need for disclosure of employment agreements unrelated to a Member's role in Parliament. We did feel, however, that the requirement should include frequent or regular commitments, as opposed to merely occasional commitments outside Parliament, which seem clearly to arise directly from membership of the House: for example, an agreement for money to write a regular newspaper column or to compere a television programme. That is much more comparable with an outside job than irregular, infrequent interviews on particular issues.
The second element on which the Committee was virtually unanimous, although there was one dissenting voice, concerned the timing of the introduction of the new arrangements for depositing employment agreements. The large majority felt that any new agreements between Members and outside bodies should conform to the rules with effect from the beginning of the new Session—later this month. Members with existing agreements that conform to the new rules should put them in writing, if they have not already done so, and deposit them with the commissioner by 31 March next year. Members with existing agreements that fall foul of the ban on paid advocacy in Parliament will have until 31 March either to bring the agreement within the rules and deposit it with the commissioner, or to withdraw from it.
Whatever arrangements might apply to any individual Member, the great majority of the Committee believed that the new resolution banning paid advocacy should be in force for all Members from the start of the new Session. The great majority of the Committee felt strongly that we could not endorse a position in which there would be one group of Members who could advocate a cause for payment and another which could not.
Where

the Committee divided—to my great regret it divided, as everyone knows, on party lines—

Mr. Dennis Skinner: The Tory party as well.

Mr. Newton: I regard that division as a matter of regret; I am not attacking anyone. It divided on the question whether contracts deposited with the commissioner should be open to public inspection, and should include details of the remuneration received.

Mr. Bill Michie: Will the Leader of the House give way?

Mr. Newton: May I please continue my argument in a connected way?
The opinion of the majority was in effect that the crucial issue was the need for the Commissioner for Parliamentary Standards, in fulfilling his duties, to know what an agreement committed a Member to do. It felt that the basic purpose was therefore achieved by the deposit of such agreements, but without the remuneration.
The reasons for that are set out in paragraphs 43 to 49 of the report, which I am sure that the House will have studied with care. However, I emphasise what I believe the majority of the Committee would regard as the two main points.
First, we felt that it was right to consider the issues of restriction of activity, so to speak, and disclosure together—as, indeed, Nolan had done—in the light of the fact that the whole Committee had agreed on an overall approach radically different from that recommended by

Nolan. Nolan had concluded against the distinction between advocacy and advice on which our Select Committee has agreed, and proposed only a limited ban on agreements with multi-client lobbying organisations. It took the view that more information about existing agreements, and more examination of the implications, was needed before a decision on a wider ban could be taken. It said that it was "in this context" that the recommendations on disclosure of agreements and remuneration was crucial.
Against that background of an overall approach very different from Nolan—and going very much further than Nolan—the majority believed it also necessary to consider the way in which the associated Nolan recommendations on disclosure should be looked at in that new and very different context.
Obviously, no question of disclosure could arise in relation to activity that was no longer allowed. Therefore, to the extent that disclosure of remuneration had been regarded as an answer to the perceived problem, the case on those grounds fell away if the activity itself were not to be allowed.
Secondly, therefore, in that new context, the majority felt it right to give greater weight to the difficulty of drawing a fair and sustainable line between activity for which remuneration would have to be disclosed and activity for which it would not. The point is perhaps most clearly illustrated by the Nolan report's reference to financial benefits that Members
receive as a consequence of being elected".
That would manifestly go much wider than the type of agreements that we have been considering and would, for example, obviously embrace the great majority of payments made to Members for newspaper articles, broadcasting and lecturing. The vast majority of those arise from being a Member of Parliament.
Nor is it hard to think of other issues on which argument would increasingly arise. I simply quote the Committee's conclusion.

Mr. Bill Michie: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Newton: I will give way to enable me to find the Committee's conclusion.

Mr. Michie: I am grateful to the Leader of the House. In the course of many years, this place has passed legislation that has forced local government to be open, honest and above board. Not so long ago, the Government took away the right to silence of suspects, on the grounds that they had nothing to hide. At the Tory party conference, the party discussed the business of introducing identity cards to recipients of benefit because, if one has nothing to hide, one has nothing to fear. What do we have to fear by ending the right to silence in the House?

Mr. Newton: To judge from some of the posters that I have seen on television, the hon. Member for Dewsbury may make a similar argument. I believe that it would be right for me to leave the hon. Gentleman to make his own speech, if he wishes, rather than to discuss that now.

Dr. John Reid: rose—

Mr. Newton: No; I will not give way any more. I said that I wanted only to quote the Committee's conclusion. I quote paragraph 49, which I believe is the only part of our report that I shall read out again:


In reality we judge that the real choice is between the view that compulsory disclosure of remuneration for legitimate activity is an unjustified intrusion, and the view that full disclosure of all income—in effect, the publication of the tax return—should be required. Nolan concluded that 'no-one has put a convincing case' for full disclosure.
The majority of the Committee agree with that.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: On that subject, which is especially important, I have heard Conservative Members suggest that our amendment would require the publication of tax returns. Will the Leader of the House confirm that no member of the Select Committee advocated that course of action, and that the amendments that we are debating tonight do not say that we should go down that path?

Mr. Newton: I have no desire to mislead anyone. It is certainly the case that no proposition of that type was put to the Committee or argued in the Committee, and I understand that the hon. Lady's amendments, which I believe would give rise to the growing distinctional problems that I have mentioned, would certainly not take us in one leap to full disclosure of tax returns.
I conclude by saying that on that, as in every other matter before the House in the debate, it is for the judgment of Members to decide. However, what I claim for the Select Committee is that, taken together, our two reports constitute the most significant strengthening of our rules for decades—certainly since the register was introduced in 1974, and in my opinion for much longer than that.
Our proposals are designed to balance the overriding duty of Members to serve their constituents without undue hindrance, with the necessary safeguards that our freedoms in the House should not be abused. I believe that our proposals stand together as a carefully thought out and comprehensive package, and I invite the House to endorse it by voting for all the resolutions in my name.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: I start by declaring, as always, the interests that I have that appear on page 129 of the Register of Members' Interests—my sponsorship by the General, Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union, the fact that I am an adviser to the Association of Teachers and Lecturers and the fact that Unison has in the past helped with my office costs. Not included in the register, because it was a late addition, was the gift of football tickets to my family earlier this year.
I mentioned the interests that I have, not only because it is right that any Member speaking in the debate should do so but because it is obvious from the interests I have that I am affected by the amendment on disclosure that stands in my name and that of Members from other parties in the House. I shall speak specifically to that amendment in a few moments, but I want to make it clear that I am affected by that, as are hon. Members who I believe will join me in the Lobby tonight.
I do not want to go over the whole history of how we come to be debating the subject today. We are short of time and I believe that the whole House is aware that it is an important issue, in terms of the confidence that people can have in Parliament and of the matters that arose from the "sleaze factor", as it was sometimes called.
I simply recall the very end of our most recent debate on that issue in the House, when some Members, such as the hon. Members for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) and for

Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), said that they agreed with the principle of disclosure but wanted more work on the detail of the way in which that would operate to be carried out by the Select Committee.
It is interesting to note, and we should remember, that paragraph 69 of the Nolan committee report says that, of those Members of whom Lord Nolan asked the question, "Do you mind if there is disclosure of the income that you receive for parliamentary activities?" none said that he objected to that limited disclosure about which Lord Nolan was talking.

Mr. Terry Dicks: Is the hon. Lady aware that, even if someone wanted voluntarily to record the amount of money that he receives from a consultancy, the House laws prevent that from being recorded in the Register of Members' Interests?

Mrs. Taylor: There is no provision in the existing register for such disclosures to be made in general terms, although many people who have sponsorship use the fact that they are covered by the Hastings agreement as a shorthand way of doing exactly that.
It is important that the House, when debating that issue today, remembers that many hon. Members on both sides of the House said that they supported disclosure of the amounts in that limited area relating to parliamentary activities if definitions could be found. The Select Committee resumed its work on that basis.

Mr. Tim Devlin: The Labour party in my constituency is putting out a statement that the hon. Lady is bringing forward a proposal today that
all payments to MPs be made public in a register of members interests".
Is that the position or not?

Mrs. Taylor: I hope that the hon. Gentleman has read my amendments carefully. The amendments, which are tabled in my name and those of other members of the Committee, do not call for any more than Lord Nolan's committee called for: the declaration should include amounts paid to us as a result of interests which we have and which are related to our parliamentary activities. I am happy to make that clear, and shall talk about it in greater detail shortly.

Mr. Marlow: I wish to clarify one issue so that we are aware of the rounded story. Is it true that, under the first motion, if any of the hon. Lady's hon. Friends were provided with office facilities in their constituencies by trade unions, they would not, in the House, be able to advocate the trade unions' position?

Mrs. Taylor: The issue of sponsorship—the interests and advantage of and help from sponsorship—is covered not by the first motion but by the second. The subject of sponsorship was dealt with specifically by the Select Committee, which made no changes to the existing provisions in relation to sponsorship, not least because most of us know that the 1947 resolution already exists.

Dr. Keith Hampson: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Taylor: I cannot give way—I have already done so. We are short of time and need to make progress.
I want to endorse much of what the Leader of the House said about the way in which the Committee operated. For the most part, we had constructive discussions and had to agree to differ on, I think, two or three points. Unfortunately, those points were critical, at least to my mind, which is why I have tabled the amendments.
I shall start with the 1947 resolution and return to the evidence that I gave to the Nolan committee some time ago. I said then:
the ground rules that some Members—indeed, I believe the majority of Members—believe existed have certainly not been followed by some Members in individual cases.
But, I continued:
It is clear, and "Erskine May" has made this clear over the years, that certain actions are just not acceptable, such as Members of Parliament accepting payment or inducements for any kind of Parliamentary activity.
That is how people interpreted the status quo, and it is an important starting point. The Nolan report makes it clear that that has been the case for many years—not just since 1947 but since the middle of the last century and, indeed, since 1695.

Dr. Hampson: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Taylor: No, I cannot give way. I must make progress.
The ideas behind the 1947 resolution are not new. I would therefore argue that the ideas behind the first motion which the Leader of the House moved today are not new. As he said, they had the unanimous support of all members of the Select Committee. The motion acknowledges the sound basis of the 1947 resolution and the fact that it dealt with the issue in principle, but it adds more detail, is more specific and gives examples of what cannot be considered as legitimate activity if a Member of Parliament is undertaking that activity for money.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Taylor: No; I am sorry, but I cannot give way as I want to deal with this point.
It is important for everyone in the House to realise that the Select Committee report stated that the list which is featured as an addition to the 1947 resolution is illustrative and is not supposed to be exhaustive. Those who want statutory provisions must bear in mind that it will be difficult to cite every example of what hon. Members cannot do. If we were to adopt that approach, we might create even more loopholes.

Dr. Hampson: rose—

Sir Terence Higgins: rose—

Mrs. Taylor: I shall give way to the right hon. Member for Worthing, who is a member of the Committee.

Sir Terence Higgins: The hon. Lady will be aware that the Committee spent an immense amount of time on many issues, particularly the subject of speaking in the House. The Leader of the House was right in saying that we were unanimously agreed on what we considered to be the right approach to that issue. But does the hon. Lady think that the motion as now drafted implements the Committee's intention, specifically with regard to paragraphs 21 to 26?

I should have thought that there was a catch-all motion, in addition to the specific initial motion, that could state that the thrust of the Committee's report was also accepted by the House. If so, this particular problem would be solved.

Mrs. Taylor: The right hon. Gentleman, who served on the Committee—I think that he attended every sitting—knows how we wrestled with the problems. He also knows that we did not say that our report was the last word on the issues and that the new Select Committee and the code of conduct—particularly the code of conduct—would have to tackle some of the problems.

Mr. Nigel Evans: rose—

Mr. Budgen: rose—

Mrs. Taylor: I must make progress. I should have thought that the 1947 resolution—and its extension—was the least controversial part of what we are discussing.

Dr. Hampson: rose—

Mr. Evans: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. Do I understand that the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) is not prepared to give way at the moment?

Mrs. Taylor: indicated assent.

Madam Speaker: In that case, the hon. Gentlemen must not persist, but must resume their seats.

Mrs. Taylor: The Nolan committee stated that the 1947 resolution formed the basis of the list of allowable activities. It also referred to a problem that has exercised your mind on occasions, Madam Speaker, and the minds of others in the House: the feeling that, since the introduction of the Register of Members' Interests, there has been a tendency to create the false impression that any interest is acceptable once it is registered. That is why we need to go further today and be more specific about what is considered acceptable.
I want to examine the question whether the total ban on advocacy, for single as well as multi-client companies—to which the Leader of the House referred and which is covered by our Select Committee report—takes the issue much further than the Nolan report, as some people have claimed. The question is whether that is a step of such fundamental importance that it negates the need to implement the other key Nolan recommendation: disclosure of paid advisory work.
I wish to explain to the House why we supported including single clients in the ban for two reasons. The first is the obvious one that many of us thought that single clients should be and were covered anyway under the 1947 resolution. There was also a practical reason: it is clear from the Select Committee's report that it would have been nonsense to ban advocacy by those acting for multi-client companies but allow it for those acting for single-client companies.
Paragraph 9 of the Select Committee report states:
it would not be difficult to devise a system whereby a multi-client organisation could operate through a series of single-client subsidiaries, thereby circumventing
the rules.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Some 167 Opposition Members are sponsored by single-interest groups such as trade unions. Earlier this year, I participated in a debate on the railways. Only five Opposition Members were present, all of whom were sponsored by railway trade unions. Does the hon. Lady think that that was right? Does she not think that those Members should be prevented from taking part in such debates in future?

Mrs. Taylor: I am sure that I do not need to tell the hon. Gentleman that none of those individuals would receive money directly for himself from those organisations. Nor should I need to advise the hon. Gentleman of his rights, whereby, if he thinks that any hon. Member, from either side of the House, is in breach of current provisions, he should report it in the appropriate way.
I say to the hon. Gentleman and to Conservative Members that the ban on advocacy was extended to single clients as well as multi-clients, to close a very obvious loophole. Hon. Members who rely on the argument that the Select Committee goes further than Nolan as justification for non-disclosure of money from Parliament-related work should be aware that that argument does not hold up.
There are potentially three types of paid employment that the Select Committee believes could involve Members of Parliament: paid advocacy, paid advisory work and work independent of the House. We have already dealt with paid advocacy, which was banned by the 1947 resolution. Therefore, the House proposes no change to paid advocacy in principle. It is important to state—I know that it will interest some Conservative Members—that there is no change to the work performed by a Member of Parliament that is completely independent of his or her parliamentary duties. Some hon. Members believe that such interests should not exist. So far as today's debate and the Nolan report are concerned—

Dr. Hampson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: It sounds to me as though it will be a point of frustration because the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) was unable to intervene on the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor).

Dr. Hampson: I apologise, Madam Speaker, as I have seldom done this to the Chair, but the hon. Lady is slightly misleading the House.

Madam Speaker: Order. First, I know full well that the hon. Gentleman is not raising a point of order with me: he is frustrated because the hon. Member for Dewsbury will not allow him to intervene. Secondly, the hon. Lady is not misleading the House even slightly, so I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will rephrase what he has to say.

Dr. Hampson: Paragraph 30 of the Nolan report says that the 1947 resolution—

Madam Speaker: Order. What is the point of order to me? It must be to do with the Standing Orders or the procedures of the House. The hon. Gentleman is showing his great frustration at not being able to put his question to the hon. Lady. He must contain himself.

Mrs. Taylor: The report of the Select Committee and the amendments that we have tabled will make no difference to

hon. Members' paid advocacy work—which is banned—and no difference to that work performed by a Member of Parliament completely independent of his or her parliamentary role. Paragraph 70 of the Nolan report says:
We are aware that in a number of other countries the practice is to require full disclosure of assets and income. But it is by no means clear that full disclosure of financial matters unrelated to Parliamentary business is relevant to the public interest. No-one has put a convincing case to us as to why that might be necessary".
That applies to the Select Committee report and to the amendments that I have tabled; it is misleading for anyone to suggest otherwise. We agree with the Prime Minister, who said last week that hon. Members are entitled to the same tax privacy as other people. However, that point is irrelevant to the debate this evening; no one is suggesting otherwise.

Sir Edward Heath: Will the hon. Lady help me on that point, to which reference is made in paragraph 38 of the Select Committee's report? The hon. Lady emphasised that, if hon. Members' work is not connected with Parliament, that is the end of the matter. Paragraph 39 goes on to state:
The present rule is that all remunerated outside employment must be included in the Register".
Why must such work be included in the Register of Members' Interests, if, as the hon. Lady says, it has no connection with Parliament?

Mrs. Taylor: It must be listed in the register under the current rules, which have applied for some time. There is no change to that category either as a result of the Select Committee's recommendations or as a result of my amendments.

Mr. Jim Lester: If hon. Members declare income from advisory or consultancy roles, people will falsely relate the time that Members of Parliament spend in those roles with the time that they spend on constituency work. Hon. Members who are part-time farmers, journalists or banisters may devote a great deal of time to those tasks outside the House, but they do not have to declare their cash receipts.

Mrs. Taylor: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will re-read the relevant sections of the report which relate specifically to parliamentary activities. The report also deals with protection in relation to constituency activities. No confusion need arise in that area. However, if there is any doubt in hon. Members' minds, the Select Committee is drawing up a code of conduct and, from 15 November, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards will be able to provide advice on the matter.
I turn now to what I thought was the most controversial issue—it is certainly the issue that divided the Select Committee. The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) referred to the issue of "parliamentary advice"—that is the shorthand term. The category embraces all the work that an hon. Member has only because he or she is an elected Member of Parliament. It is extremely important to remember that that category of work exists only because hon. Members are elected to this place. The Nolan report states:
Full declaration is especially important in respect of paid activities relating to Parliament".
The Select Committee recognised that the activities in that category are separate from independent earnings of Members of Parliament. In his motion, the Leader of the


House recommended that all agreements that hon. Members have relating to parliamentary activities should be deposited with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards; in other words, the agreements are relevant because they relate to parliamentary activities. I support that view: I think that those interests should be registered. However, I think that we should go further and ensure that they are subject to full disclosure.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Taylor: No, I must make some progress.
The Select Committee points out that Members of Parliament receive such payments only by virtue of their positions in this place: they would not receive them if they were not Members of Parliament. Therefore, our constituents have a right to know about the payments and they should be made public. If there is a distinction to be made, it is the one that has been drawn already—and that the Leader of the House commended to the House—between those agreements that relate to parliamentary activity and the independent work that some hon. Members perform. No further distinction needs to be made in order to implement the amendments that stand in my name.
The Nolan committee recommendations state that the amount of money that Members of Parliament receive is relevant because whether an hon. Member receives £1,000 or £20,000 from an organisation may influence that hon. Member when it comes to disagreeing with that organisation. That point is fundamental to our argument and to our amendments.
Some Conservative Members are concerned about the long-term consequences of going down the disclosure path. There have been many scares about tax returns and I hope that the Leader of the House has calmed some of the hysteria with his answer to my intervention. The scares about hon. Members' income tax returns being made public are no more than smokescreens and diversions from the central issue. I would go further and say that there is far more chance of seeing a real campaign to make hon. Members' tax returns public if my amendments are defeated this evening than if they are carried.
This is an important issue for everyone in the House. Hon. Members on both sides of the House resent the fact that all Members of Parliament are getting a bad name because of the activities of a few. The best way to protect the good name of Parliament and to rebuild public confidence in Parliament is to vote for my amendments this evening.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. I remind Members that speeches are now limited to 10 minutes.

Mr. Tom King: I am sure that I am not the only hon. Member who regrets that we are debating this matter. There is no question but that the honour and integrity of the House is the responsibility of every individual Member. No matter how many rules are written, there will be attempts to evade them, and the integrity of the House is the most important issue.
The Nolan committee made some unanimous recommendations without dividing on party lines and I very much regret that the Select Committee was unable to do the same. If I hold one Member of Parliament most responsible for that, it is the Leader of the Opposition. I am sorry that he is not here today, although of course I understand why.
I have listened to the right hon. Gentleman holding forth about the need to uphold the integrity of the House and standing up for the moral position of Parliament. I have also read about the deal between trade union leaders and members of the Labour party, in which he made it clear that Labour had to be seen as squeaky clean and that any apparent financial link between unions and Members of Parliament had to end as soon as possible.
The key criterion of the new compromise deal that was put together by a working party of trade unionists and Members of Parliament over several months, during which many unions, including the Transport and General Workers Union, which sponsors the Leader of the Opposition, balked at the idea of losing total control over how their money was spent, was that, under the new system, the money paid to constituencies would not have to be registered. That is clear proof that, whatever rules we make, attempts will be made to avoid transparency.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. King: No. [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. Mr. King.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. King: I shall give way to the hon. Lady, but she must be brief, as I have only 10 minutes.

Mrs. Taylor: I shall be very brief. As a member of the Nolan committee, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the Labour party has been pressing for an urgent inquiry into party political funding?

Mr. King: As the hon. Lady will know, the Nolan committee referred to that issue. It referred specifically to the declaration of interests and recommended that we should examine not only political funding, but the financial issues involved. Many hon. Members missed the direct reference by the Nolan committee to the pay of hon. Members and the need to examine that issue.
The party political campaign that has been waged has distracted the attention of the media and that of many hon. Members from many of the most significant elements of the Nolan report. I pay tribute first to the Government's response to the recommendations that were directed towards them. In a singularly ill-attended debate on Thursday night, we dealt with the issues regarding retiring Ministers now being required to go to the Carlisle committee, the introduction of "Conduct and Procedure for Ministers" and the introduction of the code for the civil service—all important new developments.
The other success of the Nolan committee has been to address not just Members, but a wider public outside, including many organisations that deal with Parliament, on the importance of maintaining high standards. One does not have to be Secretary of State for Defence for very long to know about the intense lobbying by forces


outside Parliament. Hon. Members on both sides of the House are involved with outside organisations that lobby extremely hard. There has been the growth of a rather casual approach in some quarters. I welcome the fact that the very existence of the Nolan committee has led to the recognition of the importance of maintaining high standards. I can already see signs of their wider recognition.
I dare suggest to the House that the most significant issues are not those that are currently most divisive and the subject of the greatest argument. The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards will make a major and valuable contribution. I hope that hon. Members have had a chance to read his job description and to consider the role that he can play, together with the new Committee on Standards and Privileges and the code of conduct.
He will be helpful in the guidance and advice that he will provide, the maintenance of the register and his ability independently to investigate complaints. I trust that no hon. Member wants any genuine misdemeanour not to be properly investigated. The commissioner will also give proper protection to the innocent, who can be too easily maligned and smeared in the press without adequate recourse. In that respect, the ability to make an independent investigation is valuable.
Some of my hon. Friends are worried that we might have set up somebody who is unaccountable to the House. I said in a previous debate that the commissioner would be selected and appointed by the House, answerable to a Select Committee and able to make his own investigations, but would report the findings of those investigations only to a Committee of the House.
My only query—and I know the difficulties that the Commission faced—concerns the salary chosen for the gentleman in question and the days that it is thought necessary for him to do his work. I have the greatest respect for Sir Gordon Downey, but no Comptroller and Auditor General ever received such a total remuneration as he will now receive, of salary and pension.
I say to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that I hope that the code of conduct will proceed with the greatest possible haste.
I come now to the alternative approaches that are at the heart of the debate. In Nolan, we suggested that, with the exception of the multi-client agencies and consultancies, the best approach was to permit activities existing at present but to go for full transparency and disclosure. The Select Committee has decided unanimously that it can improve on that and recommends a total ban. I note from some interventions that not all Members are absolutely sure that the Select Committee has got it completely right.
We encountered real difficulties in drawing a distinction between advice and advocacy. We were concerned as to whether it might unreasonably restrict the perfectly legitimate expression of views on behalf of constituents or perfectly reputable outside bodies. We also doubted whether it could be acceptable to the House. If the unanimous view of 15 senior and experienced Members of Parliament is that it can be done, I am prepared to support it, but I worry about the responses by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) to the intervention about the motions—that a great deal can be

done by a subsequent Select Committee, which appears to be able to amend the motions or give different guidance from what may be in the motions at the moment. If my right hon. Friend puts the motions to the House tonight, I shall support them, as they clearly go further than the Nolan committee.
I do worry about the speed with which this whole exercise has been conducted. I know that the Select Committee met quite a number of times, but at the same time I wonder whether what the hon. Member for Dewsbury has described as fundamental changes have been completely thought through. The proposed ban is certainly a major step.
As for disclosure, Nolan of course recommended full transparency in respect of contracts for work related to Parliament, and I believe that that was right, but with the new proposal—

Madam Speaker: Order. Time is up.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: I was surprised that the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) saw fit to question the speed at which the Committee operated, since it was his committee which recommended that the changes should be in effect at the beginning of the forthcoming Session. That is why we met with such frequency and diligence during the summer recess. I also regret the somewhat partisan note that he injected. Efforts certainly were made to come to a unanimous view. My view, when the committee produced its first report in July, was that it was worth deliberating during the summer recess, despite the inconvenience, to see whether it was possible to reach agreement. That did not prove possible, and I regret that too.
I particularly regret the fact that the Leader of the House did not feel able in the event to support Nolan's core recommendation that there be full disclosure of Members' outside interests—including the explicit recommendation that they should declare in the register their annual remuneration in respect of services provided in their capacity as Members of Parliament. I do not propose this evening to go beyond dealing with the issue on which the Select Committee was unable to reach a conclusion unanimously, as, between them, the Leader of the House and his shadow have already deployed the arguments that the Committee put forcefully.
The issue that divided us was extremely important. The argument that proposing a ban on paid advocacy by Members dispenses with the need for disclosure of payments for parliamentary services is specious and unconvincing. Nolan did not tie its recommendation of disclosure to Members serving outside interests only as advocates. Nolan specifically rejected the argument that "actual remuneration is irrelevant". Indeed, the Committee described it as not at all convincing.
Nolan went on to say:
A member who gets £1,000 a year as a Parliamentary adviser is less likely to be influenced by the prospect of losing that money than one who receives £20,000 a year. The scale of remuneration is in practice relevant to a full understanding of the nature of the service expected.
We must dispense with the impression that some have tried to give: that moving towards a full ban on advocacy, or attempting to redefine the terms of the 1947 resolution,


has in some way made it possible or acceptable not to reveal the money given to Members of Parliament in return for their advice.

Mr. Jenkin: rose—

Mr. Maclennan: I know that the House wants to hear as many speeches as possible, so I must curb my desire to give way to the hon. Gentleman.
I am not alone in entertaining some doubts. The right hon. Member for Bridgwater worried about the practicality of distinguishing between advocacy and advice; and perhaps more importantly, about policing the distinction between them. When I gave evidence to the Nolan committee, I drew attention to some of the difficulties. Someone giving advice about how to obtain an opinion from the House of Commons or from a Minister is coming pretty close to being an advocate.
These moves will not necessarily prove to be the final word on the matter, but it is still worth making explicit the prohibitions set out in the principal resolution before the House today, which describes the activities considered to involve advocacy. This, however, cannot be the end of the matter. The prohibitions do not discharge hon. Members from the explicit duty proposed by Nolan to publish the income that they receive for offering advice to clients as Members of Parliament.
More generally, this debate has to some extent unfortunately been cast in the mould of a discussion about standards in public life. The revelations of the past three years have made that inescapable, but this is not entirely a debate about political morality. It is also—and should be—a debate about the effectiveness of this House. It is not just the venal behaviour of—I believe—not very many Members of Parliament that should be under the spotlight. It is also the inadequacy of Parliament to discharge the functions required of it that has fostered the growth of lobbying, which in turn has led to the problems that we face today.
The huge increase in the volume of legislation, the inadequately prepared and often too partisan nature of that legislation, the inadequacy of the consultation on that legislation, and the speed with which it has been enacted and—frequently—repealed have all contributed to the growth of an army of consultants outside Parliament, whose business it is to get a fair hearing for the important interests of those affected by proposed Government legislation.
This is the problem that underlies the difficulties that we have faced. There has been a vast increase in the amount and speed of the business conducted here. The real problem is that the voices of those affected by what we do have not been heard; consequently there has been a demand for consultants and public relations people, who expend time and effort ensuring that those voices are heard. Conditions today are very different from when the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) was first elected. The volume of legislation has doubled; vast amounts of subordinate legislation are not adequately scrutinised. Parliament must take that in hand, or the process of overload will lead to Parliament breaking under the strain and Members falling foul of outside pressures.
I believe that the Nolan committee has offered us some medicine that we have no choice but to swallow, quickly, but there has been a systemic failure in this House and

this Parliament that requires much more radical reform. We need a Great Reform Act to unpack our much vaunted Westminster model of government. That wider reform of the constitution is now necessary. The evidence that it is needed emerged, even before Nolan, in the strains and stresses of a system that is breaking.

Mr. John Biffen: My right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) described a sense of unease—almost distaste—about the nature of this debate. Obviously no one enjoys talking about his emoluments. But there is also a sense of frustration, in that, ideally, we should like to discuss the whole question of registration and financial disclosure and its regulation and enforcement. The context that that would give our discussions would greatly enhance them, but clearly that cannot be done.
I do not object to the way in which the debate has proceeded in recent months. The House will learn to treasure the stand taken by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) in promoting the desirability of a legal framework within which such measures could be resolved—a point picked out by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen). With a partnership like that, who knows how it can be countered?
The essential questions are the financial circumstances of Members of Parliament—particularly the undesirability of paid advocacy, and the alternatives that might be sought. In the 1960s and 1970s, I sat on the Government Back Benches and was fascinated by the exposition of James Callaghan in respect of the police and of Brian Walden in respect of turf accountants. It was a sort of dignity and impudence, and it was immensely impressive. No one thought that those Members of Parliament had demeaned themselves by that particular enterprise. No one thought that the House was being treated disparagingly.
I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is correct when he says that the mood of the public has moved on. What was accepted by the House in the 1960s and 1970s as being natural and beyond question would be of great concern today. If it is the mood of the public that is driving this debate—and I believe that it is—it is not just a matter of the club secretary looking in the suggestions box to see whether things could be done rather better. There is outside the House a powerful mood of anxiety about how Members of Parliament perform. The institution cannot be kept separate from its membership. We are right to react with caution and anxiety, and right to examine what reforms may be made.
Another aspect of the mood of openness is the way in which society outside Parliament is looking at its institutions, which interacts at one point with this debate. Under the Cadbury rules, public limited companies must enumerate directors' fees in their accounts. For individuals for whom such information is an area of fascination, payments made to Members of Parliament are already revealed in corporate accounts. That has nothing to do with the heroic standards of the House but with outside interests. Do not suppose that that can happen without a consequence for the House, the register and the whole issue of hon. Members' interests.
The money that a Member of Parliament receives as a director will be public knowledge but that which he receives as a consultant will remain veiled in mystery. That situation cannot be sustained. It has nothing to do with the decision that we are taking this afternoon but with other forces at work outside the Chamber, which require a different approach to disclosure.
Anyone who felt anxious about the fragility of today's decisions will have them reinforced by the debate. I do not make this point to my right hon. Friend in an aggressive or hostile way, but the moment we try to distinguish between advice and advocacy, we face difficulties. Time and time again, hon. Members have said how difficult will be the question of definition. My right hon. Friend used a delightful phrase—I believe that it was "definitionally critical", which was a Shakespearean touch. All distinctions will become untenable and will make this afternoon's proposals unsustainable. There will inevitably be pressure to produce more rational and extensive disclosure.
When I first entered the House, there was no Register of Members' interests. The House was as candid, open and honourable then as it is now—although I cannot say that this development is particularly encouraging. I cannot see the House turning away from the requirement for financial disclosure. If that is to come via Cadbury in the corporate sector, that itself will be the engine of change that will run through our procedures. Eventually it will extend to non-parliamentary interests. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) said, that throws up the whole question of what information should be entered in the register if it is not a declarable interest in respect of financial disclosure. Those are the problems over the brow of the hill, and they cannot be avoided.
The Prime Minister said that it was greatly his hope that the matter could be resolved in the sense of long-term implications. Of course he is right. Of course the House must resolve the matter, but it must do so more logically and clearly, and—I regret to say—on the far side of the general election, for the general election and partisan politics cast a blight across proper and sustained consideration. Tonight, we will do my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House a favour if we ask him to take away these proposals.

Mr. Peter Shore: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) who has, as is so often the cases, something fresh to say about a subject that is already beginning to look a little worn. I particularly welcome the right hon. Gentleman's common-sense observation that right hon. and hon. Members disclose their earnings as directors but apparently do not divulge their income as consultants. That anomaly is becoming increasingly absurd.
I welcome also the right hon. Gentleman's reminder of the 1960s and of the relative rarity of consultancy arrangements in those days. That triggered in my mind an important reform recommended by the Strauss committee in 1969. If its major recommendation had been adopted,

it would have avoided much that has followed. Strauss recommended a ban on the advocacy that is now part of the Select Committee's report.
I have watched from outside the activities of the Select Committee, and it would be churlish not to recognise the enormous amount of work that it has done in a short period. Despite the real controversy that still exists between different parts of the House, it is truly remarkable—particularly for anyone who attended the first debate on 18 May—that the members of the Committee unanimously registered agreement across a vast area in their first and second report.
I particularly welcome the proposed ban on paid advocacy in the form that the Select Committee described. I am pleased that the House will ban outright practices such as cash for questions, cash for amendments, cash for early-day motions, cash for' private Members' Bills and cash for speeches in the House. I am glad that those visible and objectionable forms of advocacy will be banned.
Let us be realistic—other forms of advocacy will continue. The most important of them is the access that Members of Parliament have to Ministers and civil servants through deputations, letters and private approaches. An alleged example of that form of paid advocacy was widely publicised in the weekend newspapers.
The main issue today is whether the extended ban on advocacy, which the Select Committee has put forward, destroys the case for declaration of amounts paid to Members of Parliament through the enjoyment of other advisory consultancies. The majority of the Select Committee believe that the case for that degree of disclosure no longer exists. A minority strongly disagrees.
The arguments have already been rehearsed—rather well, I think—from both sides of the House, but at this stage it is worth reminding ourselves of precisely what Nolan had to say on that matter. I know that it has been quoted before, but I shall say it again. At paragraph 69, he said:
we believe that the public and in particular members' constituents have a right to know what financial benefit its members receive as a consequence of being elected … We consider it right therefore that remuneration should be disclosed in these cases 
The report dealt directly with the question: does the amount matter? It has already been quoted, but I shall re-quote it. It said:
A member who gets £1,000 per year as a Parliamentary Adviser is less likely to be influenced by the prospect of losing that money than one who receives £20.000 a year. The scale of remuneration is in practice relevant to a full understanding of the nature of the service expected.
By recommending that amounts should not be declared, the majority on the Select Committee has clearly retreated a considerable distance from the Nolan recommendations. A number of points need to be stressed. May I first remind the House that the Nolan committee was unanimous in its report and recommendations, and that among the 10 members of the Committee, there were, apart from a former Clerk of the House, three members with considerable parliamentary experience, representing the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democratic parties? Apart from myself, it included Lord Thomson of Monifieth, who served in this House as George Thomson MP, and the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), who is in his place today.
We all supported the proposal that there should be declared in writing not only the content of consultancy agreements but the amounts actually received, in bands of income. The issue was also raised specifically during the oral hearings of the Nolan committee, and its report noted:
several MPs with whom we have raised this issue did not object to disclosure of remuneration so long as this related strictly to parliamentary services.
The hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith), whom I see on the Conservative Back Benches and who played an active part in the work of the Select Committee on Members' Interests, was asked by a Nolan committee member whether his advocacy of greater transparency
should be accompanied by the amount of Income that is attributed to that outside interest".
The hon. Gentleman replied:
I would have no objection to that.
When pressed about the reaction of Members of Parliament in general, he said:
I find it difficult to comment on that because I have not talked to the great majority of MPs about it. I simply give my opinion that most MPs would be happy for openness".
The hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith), Chairman of the Select Committee on Members' Interests, when asked the same question, replied, not committedly but quite fairly:
I think there are arguments on both sides of this question".
It is therefore quite wrong to allege that the proposal for the disclosure of amounts received is simply the work of partisan and ill-disposed Labour Members of Parliament. That is quite false; it is the considered judgment of the Nolan committee and of many people who gave evidence to it.

Mr. King: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Shore: I am sorry, but there is a 10-minute rule.
Of course I understand why there are strong objections to the proposals. According to the present and limited register, 168 Members of Parliament with 356 consultancies have paid agreements with outside bodies. The ban on advocacy will almost certainly lead to the termination of a number of those consultancies, and to a resulting loss of income to their recipients.
As for the rest, the great bulk of consultancies, there is inevitable disquiet, because publication will almost certainly lead to demands that Members of Parliament justify their consultancy earnings. If their constituents are satisfied that these activities promote the public interest and that the Members involved are able to combine those outside paid activities satisfactorily with their primary duty to represent their constituencies and to participate in national affairs, they will have little to fear, but those who cannot so satisfy their constituents will obviously be under pressure to bring the arrangements to an end.
These anxieties, while wholly understandable, do not outweigh the basic need to restore in the public at large confidence in their elected representatives in the House of Commons. The country has a gut feeling that Members of Parliament are here above all to serve them and the nation, and that anything that interferes with that must be justified rather than taken for granted.
The House will recall that the Nolan committee was set up in October last year

to examine current concerns about standards of conduct of all holders of public office including arrangements relating to financial and commercial activities".
No one should minimise the extent of current concerns about the standards of conduct.
Failure to disclose amounts earned from all Parliament-related consultancy agreements will inevitably lead people to conclude that Members of Parliament have something to hide and cannot justify their consultancy arrangements. Nolan was set up to restore public confidence in elected Members. It will not succeed in that task if the House rejects its major recommendation: to disclose earnings.

Sir Terence Higgins: I declare the various interests that I have recorded in the register.
Ultimately, standards in public life will depend on the talent, ability, skill and integrity of those who are elected to the House. Nolan himself recognised that the issues that he was considering could not be divorced from the issue of Members' pay. I argued at column 1193 on 26 October 1995 that we are in a serious recruitment crisis in the House, not in the sense that there would be too few candidates to fill the seats but that the number of people suitably qualified to come to the House, and more particularly to be drawn from the House to become Ministers, is likely to be adversely affected if we continue the present position with regard to Members' pay.
The situation is such—I analysed it in some depth in my earlier speech—that, if we were to get Members back to the same relative position in relation to the rest of the country, in real terms, Members' pay would have to be doubled and Ministers' pay trebled. I believe firmly that we must also consider that issue in looking at and putting into context today's debate.
I suggested, since Nolan clearly has managed to establish a remarkable degree of independence, that the matter should be referred to him. He pointed out that it was outside his present terms of reference. I believe that those terms need to be changed, and we need a series of all-party discussions so that we can tackle that problem. The matter is urgent, because, if it is going to be done, it has to be done towards the end of this Parliament for implementation in the next. Given the interest in the debate today and the general atmosphere at the present time this may well be our last chance to get the matter sorted out. If we go on the same way in the next 10 years as we have in the past 30, I fear that in 10 years' time a large number of Members in the House will either be placemen or paranoiacs—[Laughter.] It is not a laughing matter. I believe that it is a very serious matter indeed.
It is generally agreed, certainly between hon. Members on the Front Benches and all the members of the Select Committee, that the Select Committee worked in an extraordinarily efficient way. We were frequently reported in the press to be deadlocked, but we spent very little time on the matter on which we were deadlocked because it was apparent that we were deadlocked and that the matter would have to be resolved on the Floor of the House.
We spent 25 sittings on this report, and 39 in total, trying to clarify the overall report of the Nolan committee. With the greatest respect to the right hon. Member for


Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), I must say that we had a great deal of clarification to do. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House pointed out, we had to examine the whole issue. He dodged the issue of consultancies; he referred it to us, and we had to come up with what I believe to be a much more sensible solution in relation to banning advocacy. We have defined it pretty precisely—and to the extent that we have not, the new Commissioner for Standards and the new Select Committee will be able to smooth the rough edges.
I must express concern to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House in regard to a rather complicated point that arose in interventions on his opening speech. We spent many hours discussing how we were to deal with the problem of speaking if advocacy was banned; the results of our deliberations are recorded in paragraphs 21 to 26. I had assumed that there would be a catch-all motion saying that we approved the general tone of the report, or the general references in it, but that has not appeared.
There is a motion stating that the drafting will be difficult, and that there will have to be a code of conduct; but, if we pass the motion as it is currently drafted, we shall end up with an interregnum in which speaking in the circumstances in which we envisage it to be permitted will be prohibited until the code has been established by the new Committee. We are constrained by time, as we have been throughout our proceedings on this matter and as the Nolan committee was; but perhaps we can try to resolve that problem this evening.
We have little time for debate. I am sorry that we cannot have a series of separate debates on the various issues—the question of deputations, for instance. Let me conclude by picking up the points made by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney. The fact is that Nolan viewed the question of disclosing amounts in relation to the confused scenario that he envisaged. He did not envisage, as we do, the total banning of advocacy. Clearly, in that context the question of disclosure simply does not arise any more. One of the main evils—perhaps the main evil—with which Nolan sought to deal was the idea that people exert influence on this place from outside by paying money to hon. Members. We have now ruled that out, so in that context it does not arise.
As for the provision of advice, as the report points out, the amount paid is likely to reflect either the resources of the recipient of the advice or the quality of that advice; but it will not affect the performance of hon. Members in the House. If it does, it will be caught by the rules and suitable sanctions will be applied. Another point made by the right hon. Gentleman needs to be dealt with, however. He said that we should reveal the amounts that are paid to hon. Members as a result of their election to the House. The implication is that hon. Members are spending considerable time outside, dealing with consultancies and so forth, rather than being in the House.
We all know perfectly well what the position really is. Many hon. Members with large outside interests are among the most enthusiastic and hard-working parliamentarians; probably no hon. Member works less than would be regarded outside as a normal working week. On the other hand, there are hon. Members—including some of those who are keenest to suggest that Members of Parliament should be full time—who do not,

perhaps, serve as much as they might on Standing or Select Committees. The amount that is paid is no indication of the amount of time that Members spend in the House. I believe that we are all full-time Members, regardless of whether we have other occupations outside.
Let me return to the main issue. I do not believe that disclosure is necessary. I disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen); I take his point about public limited compansies—no doubt his and my remuneration as directors are recorded in the annual reports—but I do not think that that justifies the extension advocated by Opposition Members. I hold that view not least because it is difficult to define whether a particular interest arises from membership of the House. Many hon. Members are now doing, on a much smaller scale, what they did before—probably in return for a much smaller income than they received then. Any statement of what they are receiving as a result of membership of the House should perhaps also take into account how much they were receiving before, and the amount by which their income has dropped as a result of that membership.
For all those reasons, I do not think that we should go along with the idea of disclosure of amounts. It has been overtaken by developments advocated by the Select Committee, which I consider a substantial improvement. Because disclosure has been the sole issue on which the press and, to a large degree, the Opposition have concentrated, we are overlooking the great extent to which we are tightening the rules with regard to the Commissioner, the new Committee and the banning of many practices which I—along, I believe, with many others—regard as completely wrong.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North said, the atmosphere has changed; but I believe that we should be able to support the changes that we are now proposing in front of our constituents. I hope that the House will not accept the Opposition amendment.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Inexplicably, the right hon. Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) excluded the possibility that Members of Parliament can be both placemen and paranoiacs. I think the House might have spared him a minute or so more to explain why.
I have long had the honour of being sponsored by the Co-operative movement, which does not make secret donations in any form—directly or indirectly—to any Member of the House. My interest is one that I declare with pride. There is nothing hole-in-corner about Co-operative sponsorship. No payment is made to the Member of Parliament and the contribution made to her or his allowable election costs is there for all to see. It is out in the open, fully disclosed and fully accounted for: a model of open dealing and political cleanliness.
Along with the hon. Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox), I am also joint parliamentary adviser to the Royal British Legion, which is a wholly honorary role, both in my case and in his.
Full disclosure of what is spent by private interests to influence decisions of the House—in particular, what is paid to individual Members—is now essential to the health of our democracy. If the mandatory declaration of


Members' earnings for work done in a parliamentary capacity for outside interests is not secured today, the battle for transparency must go on—and go on it will until no organ of opinion has cause to write, as one not unfriendly to the Government now does:
Do Tory MPs realise how grubby they make themselves look? By fighting tooth and nail to keep secret how much they earn on the side, they give the impression they have something to hide. They should stop acting like Arthur Daleys and realise that the public has the right to know what extras they are raking in.
That is not from The Guardian, New Statesman and Society or The Observer; it is from a leader in The Sun and, as every test of opinion shows, it reflects the view of the vast majority of the British people. They now no longer request, but insist, that backstairs payments for political favours must cease.

Mr. Rupert Allason: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Morris: I have a time limit.

Mr. Allason: I shall be very brief. Those of us who advocate complete transparency accept what the right hon. Gentleman says, but does he agree that it would be a good idea to extend that transparency to payments to constituencies by trade unions'?

Hon. Members: It is already happening.

Mr. Morris: As has been explained to the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason), what he seeks is happening now. I am saying that backstairs payments for political favours must cease.
The response of some hon. Members will be to say that what they decide to keep secret about their outside earnings for parliamentary work is their business, and their business alone: that it has nothing to do with The Sun, with hon. Members who take a different view or with anyone else. I implore them to think again before we vote tonight. In particular, I ask them to stop being so self-indulgent, to the detriment not only of parliamentary colleagues but of the institution of Parliament itself. Taking and concealing money for parliamentary favours is demeaning to us all and puts an undoubted stain on the reputation of this House. That is why what they do in the matter that we are debating today is our business too.
The vast majority of the electorate also insist that everything that we say and do here must now be said and done in the open. As the House knows, I serve on the Privileges Committee. I made plain, from the moment the Committee was reconstituted in July 1994, my view that it should never meet again in secret except where, for some compelling reason, more especially one involving any possible breach of natural justice, it unavoidably had to do so. Yet we still meet wholly in secret even when there is no conceivable legal or other reason for so doing and even if a witness specifically requests to be heard in public, as Peter Preston did in the case of his appearance before the Privileges Committee earlier this year.
The Prime Minister has told me that his support for secret meetings of the Committee is based on respect for precedents. "That's how it has always been" is his justification. But in the light of the seven principles of acceptable conduct in public life that were enunciated by Lord Nolan—selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership—the Prime Minister's stance is no longer tenable. The Nolan

committee puts precept into practice and I hope that its example will very soon bring the proceedings of the Privileges Committee out of the shadows and into the 20th century while there are still a few years of it left. That would help to cleanse the reputation of the House and, at the same time, improve the quality of justice that is dispensed by its most powerful Committee.
The public now want not only to hear talk about principles but to see them rigorously applied. They are entitled to see beyond the doors of the Committee Rooms of the House, to know what is happening as it happens, and to expect the Nolan committee to hark ever more loudly for the highest achievable standards in public life. I find it a matter for deep regret that the decision by the Special Select Committee on full disclosure of earnings that arises from membership of the House was taken by a casting vote, and that members of the Committee divided wholly on the basis of party allegiance.
I hope that, after this debate, the divide on full disclosure will no longer be one between right and left but will be seen in all parts of the House as one between right and wrong. It is not too late now for us to unite in the cause of open dealing and restoring the reputation of this honourable House.

Sir Edward Heath: I declare all my interests as entered in the Register of Members' Interests. None of them has any connection with parliamentary affairs.
Madam Speaker was kind enough to call me in our earlier debate on these issues, and I was hesitant about taking part today. However, there are one or two matters that I should like to mention. First, with the greatest respect to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, the whole of this affair has been appallingly handled and today has been an excellent example of that. We are squashed into a three-hour debate on an important, controversial and complicated subject. There has been little discussion of the other major issues in my right hon. Friend's speech and in his report simply because there is not enough time.
It has not been possible to interrupt some hon. Members because they can immediately say, quite rightly, "I have only 10 minutes." This is no way to conduct the business of the House of Commons. I do not blame the Leader of the House, because he is under tremendous pressure, above all from Opposition Front Benchers who have been screaming the whole time for rapid decisions because they want a decision on the revelation of Members' incomes.
I adhere to all the points that I made in my earlier speech and, in particular, to what I said about the appointment of a commissioner. I do not think that the House altogether recognises the problems that will face him. Any political agitator in the country will be able to write to him making allegations about Members' conduct in the economic sphere, and the commissioner will be bound to investigate them. In the course of that, all the allegations will become public.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: No.

Sir Edward Heath: Of course they can become public. The hon. Lady cannot simply think that, when the


commissioner starts investigating, the chap who put the allegations will not give them to the press. It will all come out and be published. If the allegations are irresponsible, there is no reason why they should be thrown to the public, and that is the problem that the commissioner will face. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman likes to indulge in unjustifiable allegations. We have had infinite examples of that, but perhaps he will desist for a moment.
I say to the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), that the proposed bands if incomes are reviewed are absolute nonsense. What justification could there be for that? Are we to say that, if an hon. Member is only mildly dishonest, we should do so and so, but that, if he is tremendously dishonourable, we should take certain other actions?
The hon. Gentleman is also wrong to say that, if an hon. Member had only his parliamentary income to live on and is offered £1,000 or £2,000, that is important to him. If he is a barrister earning £250,000 a year from fees, £20,000 is neither here nor there. We cannot categorise people's morality and honesty by trying to move financial barriers up and down. That is a great failure of his argument.
The argument with which I agreed was about the difficulties of industry, and in some cases the professions, in dealing with the Government. In this country there is an enormous gap between them, and people in industry do not know how to deal with Government Departments. I discovered that 30 years ago in the European negotiations, when I found out how close businesses in the other European Union countries were to their Governments and Ministers. Business men flew to Brussels to brief them while they were carrying on negotiations. If I mentioned that I was going to Brussels, business men would ask, "What for? Where is Brussels anyway?" That is a weakness in our structure and that is why business takes the view, "These people can help us and advise us and tell us how to do things." That is why the market has grown in such a remarkable way.
I shall now deal with the question of the public having a right to know. Of course people have a right to know about our public salaries, but we have a right to privacy. Why should people have a right to know about the financial rewards for our individual private activities? That does not stand up to any examination. It has just become a cry, "They have a right to know about us." The public have a right to know about our public position and public rewards, but not about our private activities—[Interruption.] That argument has gone out of the window. What is the point of publishing the private income of hon. Members?

Mr. Bryan Davies: We are not proposing that.

Sir Edward Heath: In that case, the hon. Gentleman disagrees with the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), who says that it has to be published if someone is registered at the moment.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for allowing me to correct the impression that he is giving. I am not saying that everything that is registered at the moment should be declared in terms of

the amount earned. At the beginning of his speech, the right hon. Gentleman said that none of his outside interests was related to parliamentary activities. In that case, none of them is covered by my amendment requiring disclosure of amounts.

Sir Edward Heath: The hon. Lady is on two entirely separate points. The first is about activities related to parliamentary activities, and they are registered. She went on to say that of course those that are not related must also continue to be registered. But what is the point of registering them if they are not connected with parliamentary activities? There is no relationship at all.
On activities concerned with parliamentary activities, what is the argument for publishing the private income that a Member receives? There is no argument for it—none at all. It is just that the Labour party wants and has always wanted to publicise what Conservative Members are earning because it has always had a doctrine of envy and hatred. We know it—we have been dealing with it for a long time. The Labour party cannot produce a single valid argument for publishing those incomes connected with parliamentary activities.
Whatever Nolan may have said, he justified this House as being a very honourable House, and so it is. No justification exists for getting into the complicated arrangements that are set out here. That is why I have continually objected to these things and to the way in which they have been handled here. There has not been proper time to examine them. The Leader of the House will agree that his Select Committee has not had proper time. It has had to sit all through the summer recess. That is no way to handle the business.
This House has always been known as an honourable House and Members have been known as honourable Members. That is the way that we should behave in future and the matter should not be tied down with the machinations of Labour Members. If we want to know their real purpose, one has only to consider their handout which was released last weekend, entitled "News From Labour". What does it say? They are going to write to 125 Members—I have not received a letter—and say, "You must tell us what your income is."

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Read it.

Sir Edward Heath: I am not going to take up time reading out the handout—Labour Members have got copies anyhow. It says, "Unless you tell us what your income is, we shall come time and time and time again, demanding that you reveal what you are being paid." What does that mean?

Mr. Bryan Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Edward Heath: No.
That means that the next election will be fought by Labour party agitators going to meetings and interrupting the whole time with only one question, "What is your income?" They want to fight an election not on policies but on envy, greed and dislike for the people in politics.

Dr. Tony Wright: The most devastating paragraph in the Nolan report is paragraph 58, which deals with the failure of the House over the years


to put itself into some sort of order. It says that, if the House had only done that, had attended to reports such as the Strauss report and to recommendations such as those of the Salmon commission in 1976 and had dealt with the need to have an effective Register of Members' Interests and bring it up to date, it would not have brought the present situation on itself. At the end of paragraph 58—this is the one sentence that I want to quote because it is a consummate understatement of the position in which the House finds itself—the Nolan report says:
The overall picture is not one of an institution whose Members have been quick to recognise or respond to public concern.
That surely is the root of all that we are talking about today.
I welcome the advocacy ban, because it is an attempt finally to get to grips with things that the House thought it had established almost half a century ago, in 1947. It turned out that it had not. The House failed to respond, which is why we are at this point today.
The ban as described in the motions is not effective enough without the amendment, because it leaves open all the ways in which, informally, hon. Members can still make representations on the part of interests for which they are paid. That cannot be right. That gap must be closed to make the ban effective, but it is nevertheless important.
There are two principles in all this. One is prohibition. The House should say clearly, without any room for doubt, that it is not acceptable for a Member of Parliament to do certain things such as taking money from outside organisations to promote causes in this place. That is what the advocacy ban will do.
The second principle is that of transparency. People must be able to see what is going on here, how we conduct ourselves and what we are doing. The right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) caught the essential mood of the moment when he said, "We have to take into account not what we say about these things but what people outside are saying." If hon. Members cannot recognise the country's mood now, they do not really understand what people are trying to say to them. People want to see that we are able to clean up our act. If we seem unable to do so, they will reach conclusions that will take us into ever more desperate circumstances.
I do not believe that some of the distinctions that the Select Committee on Standards in Public Life has tried to make are ultimately tenable, as the distinction between multi-client and single-client organisations was untenable: it fell away once it had begun to be scratched. The distinction between Parliament-related activities and non-Parliament-related activities is not effective and it will begin to disintegrate when the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards begins to consider it, which is why I tabled an amendment that I suppose stands as "the income tax return" amendment. It is not that—it does not require that—but that is what it stands as.
People want to know the answer to certain questions. First, they want to know whether Members of Parliament have other jobs and, secondly, if so, what those other jobs are for. Thirdly, they want to know how much they get paid for those other jobs and, fourthly, how much time they devote to them. No doubt our constituents and the people of this country are awfully naive about these things, but those are precisely the questions that they are asking of us. They happen to think that they elect us to he Members of

Parliament and to represent them, and that it is a job in itself. If that is not true, now is the moment for the House to tell the people of this country that it is not true.
I notice that, over the weekend, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster stumbled into that matter when he said that being a Member of Parliament was a part-time occupation. I congratulate him on the direct way in which he approaches the issue, but, if that is the House's answer to those questions, let it answer openly and not in terms of arguments about spurious distinctions that do not stand up.
Having said that, I have been prevailed upon and persuaded that Conservative Members would not understand if I were to press what is called "the income tax return" amendment—amendment (n). They say that they are confused about all this and that their confusion will be increased if the amendment is allowed to stand. From the interventions that Were made earlier, it was clear that Conservative Members were mightily confused about what was proposed. In the interests of enlightenment and the reduction of confusion, I am prepared to withdraw the amendment.
On any view, we are at a moment when the House and Parliament must take a view on whether they want to start the process of fundamental reform, of which this is only a part—indeed, it is only the beginning and, in some ways, the least significant part—or watch themselves decline ever further in public esteem.
The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) said that people effectively had no right to know certain things. People do have a right to have confidence in their public institutions and, above all, in Parliament. At the moment, Parliament is getting dangerously close to eroding that confidence. What it decides today will decide whether it starts to restore it.

Sir Timothy Sainsbury: I hope that the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright) will understand if I do not respond in detail to what he said, much as I am tempted to do so, because we are limited by time. I rather agree with those who have said that it would have been better to have a longer debate on these issues. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) said, that would have enabled us to put the issues into a wider context, and they would then have been more easily understood.
If we are to achieve our objective—which I hope we all share—of protecting the good name of Parliament, it might have been better to consider all the issues together. Instead, we are dealing with only one of three closely related issues—the advocacy or consultancy services provided by Members of Parliament in their capacity as Members of Parliament. I recognise, as have others who have spoken, that there are difficulties of definition. However, I believe that the Select Committee is broadly right in its proposals on advocacy and that the Nolan committee and the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) are broadly right in what they say on consultancies.
I have some reservations. Indeed, the hon. Lady's amendment would attract more sympathy from me—and, I suspect, others—if it dealt with several other issues. First, there is the issue of timing. Before we began our debate, several hon. Members tried to establish whether


we could consider implementing full disclosure at the start of the next Parliament, rather than the next Session. That would be a fairer and simpler system, which would allow a new Parliament to start with a new set of rules. I am not saying that we should not implement other aspects of the Nolan recommendations immediately, but full disclosure, which is a radical change, should be introduced with the next Parliament. The Opposition would attract more sympathy if they accepted that.
It would be helpful if we could have a clear declaration from the Opposition Front Bench that there is no longer the intention to move to the "income tax return" suggestion of the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood, and repeated several times, from a sedentary position, by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). They rather contradicted the hon. Member for Dewsbury.
The second issue that I believe the House should be debating today is the need unequivocally to declare support for the Nolan committee on another point. I refer to paragraph 19 of the first report, where the committee states clearly that it is desirable for the
House of Commons to contain Members with a wide variety of continuing outside interests.
I sincerely believe that we will do this House and the country a grave disservice by any suggestion that all outside interests should be banned or fully disclosed.
The third issue that should be debated now has already been raised many times, but no more eloquently than by my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins). I refer to the absurd and wide disparity between the pay of Members of Parliament, especially Ministers, and the salaries and remunerations that can be obtained outside the House. When I was a Minister at the Department of Trade and Industry, I found it bizarre to be spending much of my time in negotiation and discussion trying to help industrialists being paid five, 10 or even more times the salary of a Minister of State. Again, the House will do itself and the country a disservice if it does not agree now to deal with that issue before a general election and on an all-party basis.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing set out the reasons, facts and figures clearly. However, I want to contribute a few ideas. Perhaps it might be possible for pay to be improved in part by a much wider range of Members receiving additional payments. For example, perhaps all Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen, not just a small number, should receive additional payments. Perhaps additional payments should be made to the Chairmen of Select Committees, as they clearly carry a considerable burden.
I think that the whole matter has been a little rushed and we have not had sufficient time to debate it. We are not dealing with the whole range of issues. It might have been better if not only the proposals put forward by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, but those put forward by the Opposition had been taken away for more thought.

Mr. John Evans: I proudly declare that I am a skilled member of the Amalgamated Engineering Union, and have been since I was 16. That

organisation pays the sum of £600 to my constituency Labour party as well as an agreed amount of my election expenses. Those are duly recorded in the candidates' return, and always have been.
I pay tribute to the Leader of the House and to my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) for the way in which, together, they led the Select Committee and worked hard to seek considerable areas of unanimity. However, I make the plea that never again should the House of Commons inflict such a duty on hon. Members and expect them to produce such a detailed report in such a short time.
I shall comment on two issues, one of which was raised by the right hon. Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins), who served on the Committee: the absurd suggestion that if the House tonight agrees 'to the recommendation on disclosure of earnings, it will result in far fewer people wishing to stand as Members of Parliament. Indeed, according to the Deputy Prime Minister, it would change the very nature of the House of Commons. There was a story in The Observer last week, which I understand emanated from the Paymaster General, that if the House votes that earnings should be revealed, about 100 Tory Members will leave the House at the next election.
If there is any truth in the claim that a whole phalanx of Tories will stand down and that there will be great difficulty in attracting new candidates to take their place, that is a shocking commentary on the modern Tory party. Essentially it means that the principal interest of so many Tories is not to be elected to the House to serve their constituents or their country, but to get their hands on fat juicy consultancies to enhance their standard of living. I do not believe that there is a single word of truth in such utter nonsense. However, if senior members of the Government make such statements, it is hardly surprising if people begin to wonder what on earth the Tory party is up to.
The second point that I want to raise relates to delegations to Ministers, something on which the Committee spent some time. I made it clear in Committee that I felt it to be one of the gravest areas of concern in the entire issue of sleaze in public life. After all, if a consultant to a company can arrange a meeting for the chairman or chief executive of that company with a Minister of the Crown, he certainly justifies his salary of £5,000, £10,000 or £20,000. If the allegations in The Sunday Times about the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) were anywhere near the truth, the position is even worse than I suspected. It is not just a question of paid Members of Parliament fixing meetings for their own employers, but apparently individual Members of Parliament are anxious to meet clients who want to meet Ministers.
I can only assume that the statements of the hon. Member for Wirral, South in The Sunday Times are true, a newspaper with the background of The Sunday Times would not print them. The matter will be raised with the hon. Member for Wirral, South and he will have to deal with the occasion on which he was approached by business men claiming to be acting for the good of British industry. The hon. Gentleman said:
And I say,'oh yeah.' In fact, what they are doing is try to use some sort of political input to advance a commercial interest. Nothing the matter with that. I have no complaint about that at all. But if it's a commercial enterprise, I'm commercial.


That is the clearest indication—

Mr. Barry Porter: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Evans: I wrote to the hon. Gentleman. I cannot give way because I have only 10 minutes. I will talk to the hon. Gentleman outside the Chamber.

Mr. Porter: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for the courtesy of letting me know that he was going to raise this matter in the House. Perhaps he would be good enough the read the last paragraph of what The Sunday Times said. In case he does not have it, I shall remind him. It said that I am not in breach of any rules of this House or of any law.

Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman has put his finger on the kernel of the argument. If he is not in breach of any rules then, by God, the rules of the House need changing.
Of course, such conduct will be dealt with in future by the new parliamentary Committee and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. The need for such an expensive post—and it is expensive, at £78,000 for a four-day week—has been created by the activities of a handful of hon. Members who were willing to take cash for questions or expensive freebies in the Ritz hotel in Paris and by the Prime Minister's knee-jerk reaction to the allegations of sleaze and his establishment of the Nolan committee.
The Nolan committee established that there is widespread public concern about declining standards in public life. According to an opinion poll on page 108 of the Nolan report, 64 per cent. agreed with the statement:
Most MPs make a lot of money by using public office improperly".
Nolan also revealed that 168 hon. Members had 356 consultancies between them. The fact that most of those 168 are Tories revealed the size of the problem that the Prime Minister inherited when Nolan called for disclosure of the earnings of Members of Parliament.
The Prime Minister dealt with the problem in typical fashion by setting up another committee, the Select Committee on Standards in Public Life, and charging it with producing a report before the summer recess. It did; and recommended—and the House accepted—the appointment of a new commissioner, a new Select Committee on Standards and Privileges and a new code of conduct for Members. However, the Committee was divided on the issue of disclosure of earnings. Labour Members backed Nolan and, to no one's surprise, Tory Members on the Committee rejected disclosure.
The Chairman of the Select Committee on Standards in Public Life, the Leader of the House, dared not, at that stage, reject Nolan out of hand. After all, the Prime Minister had on 20 May, just two days after the acrimonious debate on 18 May, stated:
I do not just accept the broad thrust of Nolan. I agree with it.
The Leader of the House produced a formula for the debate on the Select Committee's first report on 19 July which stated that the Committee needed more time to study all the aspects of disclosure of earnings. The Leader of the House—he will not mind me saying this—was conducting a charade. The Tory members of the Committee had no intention whatsoever of supporting disclosure. In the Select Committee, we were not

deadlocked over the issue, as the press frequently reported. The only discussion we had on the subject took about five minutes, when we had a vote on the principles of the five options relating to Lord Nolan's demand for disclosure of earnings.
The options started with full disclosure, which the Opposition parties voted for, and then moved, by stages, further away from disclosure until there was no absolutely no disclosure—and the Tories voted for that. The Committee then agreed, without further ado or debate, that both sides would write their own versions of what they wanted in the final report and that we would vote on them in the Committee's formal and final session. That is what we did.
The Tories have made a silly mistake. A third option was available to them which called for disclosure of earnings to the new commissioner only. If they had accepted that, many Conservative Members who are concerned about the matter would have been happy. They could have lived with that and voted for it. Of course, the Tories rejected it.
If the Tories win the vote tonight, they will again leave the British people with the impression that they have something dreadful to hide. That will not go away and, as the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) said, it will certainly be an issue at the next general election.

Sir John Stanley: The two issues that have run through the debate are the declaration of earnings and the implications of the ban on advocacy, which, I believe, are much more profound than some hon. Members have suggested.
I will state my position on the declaration of earnings. I believe that the Nolan recommendations were poorly drafted. They certainly failed to clarify what was meant by "contract" and by "agreement". As to the basic principle, I do not have any objection on grounds of principle to the proposition that, where hon. Members supplement their income by providing parliamentary services to outside bodies, both the source and quanta of the sums earned should be declarable. I shall support that Nolan recommendation tonight.
The main issue before the House tonight is the implications of the declaration of the ban on what has been known as paid advocacy. The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) suggested in her opening remarks that the 1947 declaration against paid advocacy has had a material effect on the conduct of the House. In the more than 20 years that I have been in the House, paid advocacy has been alive and well throughout the House.
There have been any number of debates featuring hon. Members who have declared an interest in an outside organisation, whether a trade association or trade union, and who have clearly advocated the interest of that organisation in the course of the debate. I do not know that the 1947 declaration has had much impact, if that was indeed for what it was intended.
The so-called addendum that the Government are moving is designed to carry the matter further. That has some very real implications for what I believe to be the most fundamental right of hon. Members—the right to


speak in our proceedings in a wholly uninhibited way and to take part in our proceedings on the same basis as would any other hon. Member.
I draw the House's attention to the fact that the motion before us, over which the hon. Member for Dewsbury skipped extraordinarily lightly, proposes to a huge extent the banning of the initiation of debates by those who receive not only payments but benefits in kind, direct or indirect. I should have thought that that would have been a matter of some interest to the Labour party. The Nolan committee reported that there are 221 hon. Members with sponsorships, financial consultancies or other sorts of financial interests from trade unions. I wonder why the Labour party is not more concerned about the implications of that ban on initiating debate.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir John Stanley: I have only a short time.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said in opening the debate that, although such hon. Members may not initiate debates, they could take part in them. However, my right hon. Friend used a form of words whereby he said that, although they could take part, they would have to choose their words with care. He used the same expression in his interview on the "Today" programme last Friday. No Member of this House should be in the business of some form of self-imposed censorship—choosing his or her words carefully. I do not intend to choose my words carefully within the bounds of parliamentary expression. I am obliged to say what I think and be absolutely straight about what I believe is on the agenda.
Moreover, there is not merely to be an inhibition of power to be able to initiate debates. Paragraph 23 of the Select Committee's report postulated that hon. Members might, in some circumstances, be debarred from taking part in debates at all. That is a most profound inhibition and potential intrusion on hon. Members' right of free speech. The relevant sentence says:
On the other hand, it is not practicable to lay down in advance, with the precision that a Resolution of the House would require, all the circumstances in which it would or would not be proper for a Member with a paid interest to take part in a debate.
It will have profound consequences if we contemplate circumstances in which a large number of hon. Members were prevented from initiating debates, obliged to choose their words with care if they were to take part in debates and, in some circumstances, were unable to participate in debates at all.
Those are profoundly important matters, and it is not sufficient for the Select Committee simply to say that they should be left to the new commissioner, who is simply an official of the House, the new Select Committee or the new code of conduct. I do not criticise the Committee, which has done a Herculean job. It has had to work under a totally artificial time constraint, which. seemed to be dictated by the political requirements of the Opposition.
I see no need to rush these proposals, because the implications of a ban on advocacy for the most fundamental right of all Members of Parliament—the right of freedom of speech—must be thought through infinitely more carefully. We must know precisely who

will be banned from what, which is not clear at present. The motions before us tonight should be withdrawn and the matter referred back to the Select Committee. It is for the whole House, and the House alone, to decide who will be banned from what in participating in our proceedings.

Mr. David Winnick: My interests are recorded in the Register of Members' Interests in the usual way.
It gives me no pleasure to say that we heard a mischievous and disagreeable speech from the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath). It was totally distorted, as is his article in the Evening Standard today. He gave the impression in his speech that all is well in the House, there is no need for change and we are an incorruptible Assembly. I would remind him—he is no longer in his place—how this matter began and why the Nolan committee was set up in the first place: it was the cash-for-questions scandal.
When we first debated the matter, I said that The Sunday Times should be not criticised for what it did. Rather, it should be congratulated because, had it not carried out such an investigation, those matters would not have come to light and the reforms and recommendations before the House today would never have been agreed to. Although I am willing to, and often do, criticise that newspaper, I believe that it was in the overall interests of the House and of parliamentary democracy to bring those matters to light. That is why I believe that what it did was justified.
It is important to recognise—the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup did not recognise this—that the main controversy over financial disclosure arises not from some sinister Labour party plot but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) said, from the Nolan committee's recommendation. The Prime Minister was right to set up the Nolan committee and had our full support in so doing, so it is difficult to understand why, having said when it reported that he would support it, he has now opted out.
He has caved in to Conservative Back Benchers—some of whom are here tonight; others are not—who were totally opposed to setting up the Nolan committee in the first place. They made it perfectly clear that they did not like the idea and saw no reason why the committee should be set up. Their agitation alerted the Tory Whips to a position that has led the Prime Minister not to support a crucial part of the Nolan recommendations.
On privacy, I believe that some aspects of our personal lives are indeed our business. There was no justification for the tabloids recently exposing some of the so-called "scandals", be they about Conservative or Opposition Members, because the public interest was in no way involved. Certain aspects of hon. Members' private lives have no relevance to their parliamentary duties. However, hon. Members cannot take the view, which some Tory Members wish to take, that financial matters are purely our business and that there is no reason why the public should know what we earn from outside sources. I do not accept that view for a moment. In other countries, such as the United States, far more information must be given than what the Nolan committee recommends.
I doubt whether many hon. Members would dispute that there is public support on the crucial question whether matters relating to parliamentary activity—those financial details—should be given. There is overwhelming support in the country, far outside the Labour party, for the recommendation. Conservative Members who are adamant in their opposition to it form a small minority in the country. Even the newspapers that would normally support the Conservative cause have not supported the Tory Members who are opposed to Nolan on this issue. I cannot but emphasise, and I doubt whether any Conservative Members could disagree, that among the public at large there is overwhelming support for giving information on activities that arise from our parliamentary duties, as recommended by Nolan, in bands. What is wrong with that? Why are Conservative Members so reluctant to give that information?
If we lose tonight's vote, it will be a defeat not just for this crucial amendment but for the House. It will demonstrate that we are unable to reform ourselves, which will reflect on us all, including those hon. Members who vote for the amendment. There will continue to be a general feeling in the country that we are all in this for ourselves and are all on the make. That would be a most unjust attitude to take, but it is undoubtedly being taken.
As some of my hon. Friends have said, if the amendment about financial disclosure is not carried tonight, the issue will not go away. It will come back in this Parliament and even more so in the next. It will be a continued sore within the parliamentary and democratic system. Why do not we demonstrate our courage tonight and admit that parliamentary reform of this nature is necessary? It is what the country wants and I believe that the country is right to want it. If it is justified, why should we defy public opinion in this way? I trust that, despite all the difficulties of getting a majority for the amendment tonight, it will be carried.

Mr. David Wilshire: Even though I have no interests covered by the resolutions, I decided to become actively involved in the matter because I am fed up with being called a sleazebag. Every time that all Tory Members of Parliament are attacked, I am included, and quite frankly, it hurts. I have absolutely no doubt, however, that the overwhelming majority of Members of Parliament, whatever their political party, are decent, honourable and hard-working people. However, the public no longer think that that is true. They have reached that conclusion because of the well-publicised activities of a few hon. Members. Tonight, we have the chance to put that behind us. If it hurts us to do that, I am afraid that we have only ourselves to blame.
Because time is short, I want to confine my remarks to one issue—the disclosure of relevant outside earnings. I have come to the conclusion that we simply must disclose them. I admit that, in an ideal world, I would disagree with that and would not want to disclose such information; but we do not live in an ideal world, and we are not in an ideal House. In my judgment, the disclosure of relevant earnings has become the price that we must pay. If we do not pay that price tonight, the issue will come back, and next time the price will be higher. If we do not pay it then, the issue will come back yet again and the price will have gone up once more.
I understand the arguments of colleagues and hon. Friends—that privacy is important, and that the slippery slope beckons. My constituents and the contents of my mailbag tell me that the public do not buy those arguments. They do not believe that the Select Committee has gone far enough.
The recommendations of the Select Committee go further in respect of advocacy, and my constituents and everyone else I have spoken to are absolutely delighted about that. The Select Committee stopped short, however, of the Nolan recommendations on the giving of advice. The public will not understand that, and will not be reassured by that.
Recent history has left us in the House with no choice other than not only to be above reproach but to have 150 per cent. proof that we are so. That is why we have to pay the price that some of us do not like.
I should like to mention two matters of detail covered by my amendments. The first relates to the question of disclosing bands, to which my amendments (d) and (e) refer. I am against disclosing income in bands, for two simple reasons. First, the Select Committee report requires us to draw up contracts in detail, and to submit them. If we go for bands, we shall have to Tippex out the amount in the agreement and then write another letter. I do not particularly want to do that.
Secondly, I hope that it has occurred to hon. Members that, if we agree to bands and someone chooses to pay us £100 for giving advice, we will then be put in the band ranging from £1 to £1,000. You can bet your bottom dollar, Madam Speaker, that The Sunand the Daily Mirror will report that we have received £1,000, not £100, because we are in that band. I caution against bands, but I will not go to the stake for that principle.
My amendments (j) and (o) would make financial information declarable after the next general election. I must make it clear, however, that my amendments are not designed to put off the decision of principle until after the election. We shall take that decision of principle tonight, and we will then be left to implement everything barring making a declaration about amounts of money. I believe that that is the correct approach, for two reasons.
First, some hon. Members find a salary of £33,000 more than enough, and I respect them for that. Others come to the House, however, with certain commitments, and having made salaries well in excess of a hon. Member's salary. I respect them for that, too. There is absolutely nothing dishonourable about being in that position. If we expect those people to change the circumstances in which they find themselves, I judge that five months is not time enough for them to do so. I believe that they should be given until the date of the next general election.
Secondly, the declaration of that financial information should be put off until after the next election because of the antics of some on the Opposition Benches. I respect and agree with the official line of the Labour party that such available information is for the good of the House. Some Opposition Members, however, are already grubbing around for votes. Some of them are crowing merrily and saying, "Just you wait until the next general election, when we have the resolution. We will use it for party political purposes." I deplore such an attitude. By removing the temptation to acquire any such financial information before the next general election, my amendments enable the Labour party to prove that its members are not grubbing around for votes.
Tonight, the House faces a clear, straightforward and simple challenge: do we have what it takes to restore public confidence in the House of Commons? Are we prepared to swallow hard and pay a high price to redeem our reputation? Tonight, we do not have to decide whether we support the Government or the Labour party. Over the past few days, journalists have kept on asking me whether I intend to vote with the Labour party. One even asked me whether I planned to do the same as the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth). The answer to that was simple—hell will freeze over before I join the Labour party.
Tonight, I am not voting for the Labour party; tonight no one will be voting for Labour—people will be voting for Parliament. I am not voting against my friends and my Government, but I am voting against sleaze, and I urge the House to do the same.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: My constituency receives financial support from Unison.
I congratulate the Select Committee on producing an excellent report after a lot of work. In particular, I further congratulate it on going down the route that I think I might modestly say that I set out during the course of my contribution to the July debate, when I referred to an extension of the 1947 resolution.
In the seconds available to me, I should like to pose the House a series of questions. What does the House believe that the public believe having read the article in yesterday's edition of The Sunday Times? Does the House believe that the public would expect us to deal with the issue of hon. Members being paid to seek introductions to Ministers for their clients? Does the House believe that that is what the public want, or does it believe that we should leave the matter alone and not meddle?
As the resolutions stand on advocacy, we are doing nothing to deal with the problem that was highlighted in The Sunday Times. The practices of those who want to sell access to Ministers will remain under the resolutions before us tonight. I believe that that is wrong.
The two amendments in my name deal with access to Ministers. The first deals with meetings—their initiation and arrangement, and participation in them. The second deals with correspondence with Ministers. In so far as both would prohibit such actions by Members of Parliament, I believe that they should be carried by the House this evening.

Mr. Salmond: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. There is only one amendment on the Order Paper, amendment No. 2(p), which deals with one of the key issues in Nolan—the banning of multi-client lobbying public relations organisations having contracts with Members of Parliament. As you have not called anyone to speak for that amendment, Madam Speaker, how on earth can the debate be considered to be balanced? Is it the fault of the Leader of the House, who called a three-hour debate and so restricted the right of hon. Members to propose those amendments?

Madam Speaker: I think that a number of hon. Members will find themselves very disappointed and

frustrated today because of this short debate. They have not been called or even been able to expand on the views that they already hold.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: As a result of the debate, right hon. and hon. Members have become aware of the importance of the resolution of the House of 15 July 1947 relating to privileges—a resolution which probably no one has ever read and which probably was never drawn specifically to the attention of a Member on being elected to the House, because we have no induction procedure of any description.
I want to comment briefly on what the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) said. Although he supported disclosure, he asserted that motion No. 1, which is in the name of the Leader of the House—he appeared to believe that it was in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor)—on amending and adding to the 1947 resolution, comes to the House with a unanimous recommendation from the Select Committee. The motion is in the name of the Leader of the House, whom we sincerely hope will be supported.
If right hon. and hon. Members want to sell for money their right to initiate debate on any issue, that is up to them; they do it knowingly and accordingly must be accountable to their constituents. There is a marked reluctance to reform. That has led directly to a failure to keep pace with the attitudes, outside the House, of a more mature and alert electorate.
Lord Nolan and his Committee did not invent that problem. Nor did the media invent that problem. During the debate, mention was made of yesterday's Sunday Times. One thing must be made abundantly clear about that. If, a year ago, as I understand it from The Sunday Times, it believed that a Member of Parliament, the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter), had done something wrong, it was the duty of The Sunday Times to draw the matter to the attention of the Register of Members' Interests, not sit on it and use it in the scurrilous way that it did yesterday.
One or two hon. Members have asked why we should be treated differently from other people. The answer, I submit, is simple. We really are different. We are a unique group of 651 ordinary people, elected to carry out an extraordinary task on behalf of our fellow citizens. As a group—as an institution—we have lost a good deal of trust from, and are held in very low esteem by, our fellow citizens. We must win back that trust as quickly as possible, for the House, our institution of Parliament, is on trial.
I do not speak from the Opposition Dispatch Box for the Labour party, any more than the Leader of the House spoke earlier for the Conservative party. If we make the vote a party battle, we demean the House and ourselves. [Interruption.] Hon. Members may chaff at that, but that is the reality. I speak for those who accept the need for reform radical enough to show that we understand the public anxiety. That is what it is about.
The reform must involve transparency, to show that we are not on the make. Secrecy about earnings that are directly related to elected membership of the House sends a message that we are on the make. As the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) said, that taints us with sleaze. I genuinely believe that transparency will sterilise the sleaze argument once and for all.
The right hon. Member for Hove (Sir T. Sainsbury) made an interesting and constructive speech. He mentioned a couple of issues that deserve a response from the Opposition, and certainly from the person on the Opposition Dispatch Box who is winding up the debate. We chose the amendments to operate from the new Session on 15 November, simply to stay as near in line with Lord Nolan's Committee's proposals as possible. We deliberately sought not to deviate from the Nolan Committee report, although I accept that the right hon. Gentleman's argument has validity.
I also want to say to the right hon. Member for Hove, on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury and myself—for I do not speak for the Labour party on that subject but I know that I speak for a considerable number of Opposition Members—that we have no long-term aim to abolish outside interests or to seek disclosure of an hon. Member's total income. We have no long-term agenda in that respect.
I say to those hon. Members who might feel that the issue has already become too partisan, that I regret that, as do my hon. Friends. I know what it is like to sit on the Government Benches, wondering whether to support my tribe, and being effectively forced to do so by the antics of the tribe on the Opposition Benches. That does not, however, alter the fundamental issue, which is winning back the trust of the public through transparency.
I ask all hon. Members tonight to reach outside those tribal boundaries—we are freely elected to do so occasionally, and tonight is one of those occasions—in the interests of winning back the trust of those who sent us to this place.

Mr. Newton: Those right hon. and hon. Members who have been present throughout the debate—which has done, as did our previous debate, considerable credit to the House in spite of occasional heated moments—will realise that, on many of the issues that were mentioned, there is little that I can add to what I said in my speech opening the debate. I certainly do not wish to take up the time available to other Members, making a long, repetitive speech. However, obviously I should comment further on some issues.
First, I shall say a word about what my right hon. Friends the Members for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) and for Bridgwater (Mr. King) and several others said during the debate, or said sotto voce by coming and whispering in my ear as I sat on the Treasury Bench, about the rush with which everything has been done and the disadvantages that they believe have resulted. No one who has served on the Committee or taken part in the process would wish to dismiss that. Obviously, everything has been done in a great hurry, but that, I say to my colleagues on both sides of the House, is the position in which, as a House, we were placed by the situation that had developed.
I have no doubt that, had we sought another six, eight or nine months of delay, in which we would have been attacked collectively, not from one side or the other, for failing to respond to public anxiety, and had we let those arguments range and rage in the way that they have done, it would have gravely further damaged the reputation of all of us and of the House. Therefore, it was right to proceed fast. Although I did not wish to spend virtually

every waking hour in a Select Committee, trying to do the job that we have done, I believe that it was worth it, and that we have made real progress to the advantage of the House.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) and several others raised the question that my right hon, Friend put as if there were created some hiatus or gap between our comments in the paragraphs of the report referring to speeches, and the terms of the resolution. I would not dismiss what has been said, but it is inconceivable that the commissioner and the new committee would totally disregard the clear basis on which the House has been invited to take a decision tonight. Were that to happen—I do not believe that it could—I would certainly want to give careful and urgent consideration to the position that that would create, for example, for my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) and others. I will say—I mention something that my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) said—that that would be a much stronger argument were I seeking to persuade the House tonight to pass an Act of Parliament or a set of regulations in which we really would be subject to a great deal of legalistic textual interpretation. However, I do not believe that that fear is well founded.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup mentioned unfounded complaints being widely circulated. Paragraph 26 of our first report states:
Where, however, the Commissioner decided that no prima facie case had been established, he would merely report the facts to the committee. The Committee would inform both the complainant and the Member concerned, but no details of the complaint would be published.
That passage is underlined in red, so it must have been mentioned earlier. In view of what my right hon. Friend said, it is important for me to put that on the record again.
The other worry that has echoed through today's debate—I understand why, as we on the Committee also wrestled with it—was most eloquently expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen). He doubted whether the line could be held in the position where the Committee had proposed it. He may be right on that. One of the problems that we all have to wrestle with is that the world has moved on—that is true even since I entered the House in 1974, and since the creation of the Register of Members' Interests. New problems have arisen, public perceptions have changed, the view about what should be disclosed or registered has changed. Clearly, there may have to be further changes in future. I believe that we could respectably hold the line on the Select Committee's proposal and my resolutions.
The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) invited me to confirm what I had said about her amendment (b) not taking us straight to the publication of tax returns. I readily confirm that that is my reading of her amendment. I want to reiterate that I am concerned that her proposal will make it much more difficult to hold the line proposed by the Select Committee and will push us steadily further down a path that almost no one in the House wishes to tread and very few think right or desirable.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: I confirm that I do not wish to go down that path, and neither do the amendment's co-proposers. Will the Leader of the House confirm that the amendment that I tabled on disclosure relates only to


the agreements that he is recommending, which should be deposited with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, and is therefore limited?

Mr. Newton: That is certainly my understanding. I have never sought to mislead anyone about anything in the affair. I hope that the hon. Lady and all hon. Members will bear in mind when they decide how to vote that I have no doubt that, even though the hon. Lady says that she does not want to move in that direction, her amendment (b) will create a far greater risk of an inescapable slide towards the end that she does not want. I therefore cannot recommend her amendment to the House, and I hope that it will approve my motions.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 587, Noes 2.

Division No. 233]
[7.13 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Booth, Hartley


Adams, Mrs Irene
Boswell, Tim


Ainger, Nick
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Bowden, Sir Andrew


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Bowis, John


Alexander, Richard
Boyes, Roland


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Bradley, Keith


Allen, Graham
Brandreth, Gyles


Alton, David
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Amess, David
Brazier, Julian


Ancram, Michael
Bright, Sir Graham


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)


Arbuthnot, James
Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)


Armstrong, Hilary
Browning, Mrs Angela


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Budgen, Nicholas


Ashton, Joe
Burden, Richard


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Burns, Simon


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Burt, Alistair


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Butler, Peter


Austin-Walker, John
Byers, Stephen


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Caborn, Richard


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Callaghan, Jim


Baldry, Tony
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Barnes, Harry
Campbell-Savours, D N


Barron, Kevin
Canavan, Dennis


Bates, Michael
Cann, Jamie


Batiste, Spencer
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)


Battle, John
Carlisle, John (Luton North)


Bayley, Hugh
Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Carrington, Matthew


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Cash, William


Bell, Stuart
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Bellingham, Henry
Chapman, Sir Sydney


Bendall, Vivian
Chidgey, David


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Chisholm, Malcolm


Bennett, Andrew F
Church, Judith


Benton, Joe
Clapham, Michael


Beresford, Sir Paul
Clappison, James


Bermingham, Gerald
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)


Berry, Roger
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Betts, Clive
Clarke, Erie (Midlothian)


Blunkett, David
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)


Boateng, Paul
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Body, Sir Richard
Clelland, David


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey





Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Coe, Sebastian
Fishburn, Dudley


Coffey, Ann
Fisher, Mark


Cohen, Harry
Flynn, Paul


Colvin, Michael
Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)


Congdon, David
Forth, Eric


Connarty, Michael
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Conway, Derek
Foster, Don (Bath)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Foulkes, George


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Fraser, John


Corbett, Robin
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Corbyn, Jeremy
French, Douglas


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Fyfe, Maria


Corston, Jean
Galbraith, Sam


Couchman, James
Gale, Roger


Cousins, Jim
Galloway, George


Cox, Tom
Gapes, Mike


Cran, James
Gardiner, Sir George


Cummings, John
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Garnier, Edward


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Garrett, John


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
George, Bruce


Cunningham, Roseanna
Gerrard, Neil


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Gill, Christopher


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Gillan, Cheryl


Dafis, Cynog
Godman, Dr Norman A


Dalyell, Tam
Godsiff, Roger


Darling, Alistair
Golding, Mrs Llin


Davidson, Ian
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)
Gordon, Mildred


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Gorst, Sir John


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Graham, Thomas


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Day, Stephen
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Denham, John
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Devlin, Tim
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Dewar, Donald
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Dicks, Terry
Grocott, Bruce


Dixon, Don
Grylls, Sir Michael


Dobson, Frank
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Donohoe, Brian H
Gunnell, John


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Hague, Rt Hon William


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Hain, Peter


Dover, Den
Hall, Mike


Dowd, Jim
Hamilton, Sir Archibald


Duncan, Alan
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Hampson, Dr Keith


Dunn, Bob
Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Hannam, Sir John


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Hanson, David


Durant, Sir Anthony
Hardy, Peter


Dykes, Hugh
Hargreaves, Andrew


Eagle, Ms Angela
Harman, Ms Harriet


Eastham, Ken
Harris, David


Eggar, Rt Hon Tim
Harvey, Nick


Elletson, Harold
Haselhurst, Sir Alan


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Etherington, Bill
Hawkins, Nick


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Hayes, Jerry


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Heald, Oliver


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Henderson, Doug


Evennett, David
Hendron, Dr Joe


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Hendry, Charles


Faber, David
Heppell, John


Fatchett, Derek
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Faulds, Andrew
Hicks, Robert


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence






Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Lightbown, Sir David


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Hinchliffe, David
Litherland, Robert


Hodge, Margaret
Livingstone, Ken


Hoey, Kate
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Lord, Michael


Home Robertson, John
Loyden, Eddie


Hood, Jimmy
Luff, Peter


Hoon, Geoffrey
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Horam, John
Lynne, Ms Liz


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
McAvoy, Thomas


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
McCartney, Ian


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
McCartney, Robert


Howarth, George (Knowsley North)
Macdonald, Calum


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
McFall, John


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
McGrady, Eddie


Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Hoyle, Doug
MacKay, Andrew


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
McKelvey, William


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
McLeish, Henry


Hunter, Andrew
Maclennan, Robert


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
McLoughlin, Patrick


Hutton, John
McMaster, Gordon


Illsley, Eric
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Ingram, Adam
McNamara, Kevin


Jack, Michael
MacShane, Denis


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
McWilliam, John


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Madden, Max


Jamieson, David
Maddock, Diana


Janner, Grevilie
Madel, Sir David


Jenkin, Bernard
Mahon, Alice


Jessel, Toby
Maitland, Lady Olga


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Mallon, Seamus


Johnston, Sir Russell
Malone, Gerald


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Mandelson, Peter


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Mans, Keith


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Marek, Dr John


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Martin, Michael J (Springburn)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Martlew, Eric


Jewell, Tessa
Mates, Michael


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Keen, Alan
Maxton, John


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Meacher, Michael


Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)
Meale, Alan


Key, Robert
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Khabra, Piara S
Merchant Piers


kilfoyle, Peter
Michael, Alun


King, Rt Hon Tom
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Kirkwood, Archy
Milburn, Alan


Knapman, Roger
Miller, Andrew


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Mills, Iain


Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Knox, Sir David
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Moate, Sir Roger


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Morgan, Rhodri


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Morley, Elliot


Legg, Barry
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)


Leigh, Edward
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Moss, Malcolm


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Mowlam, Marjorie


Lewis, Terry
Mudie, George


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Mullin, Chris


Lidington, David
Murphy, Paul





Needham, Rt Hon Richard
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Nelson, Anthony
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Neubert, Sir Michael
Shersby, Sir Michael


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Nicholls, Patrick
Short Clare


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Simpson, Alan


Norris, Steve
Skeet Sir Trevor


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Skinner, Dennis


O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


O'Hara, Edward
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Olner, Bill
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


O'Neill, Martin
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Snape, Peter


Oppenheim, Phillip
Soames, Nicholas


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Soley, Clive


Ottaway, Richard
Spearing, Nigel


Page, Richard
Speed, Sir Keith


Paice, James
Spellar, John


Patnick, Sir Irvine
Spencer, Sir Derek


Patten, Rt Hon John
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Pawsey, James
Spink, Dr Robert


Pearson, Ian
Spring, Richard


Pendry, Tom
Sproat, Iain


Pickles, Eric
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Pickthall, Colin
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Pike, Peter L
Steen, Anthony


Pope, Greg
Steinberg, Gerry


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Stern, Michael


Porter, David (Waveney)
Stevenson, George


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Stewart, Allan


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Stott, Roger


Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Straw, Jack


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Streeter, Gary


Primarolo, Dawn
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Purchase, Ken
Sweeney, Walter


Quin, Ms Joyce
Sykes, John


Radice, Giles
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Randall, Stuart
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Raynsford, Nick
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Redmond, Martin
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Reid, Dr John
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Rendel, David
Thomason, Roy


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Richards, Rod
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Riddick, Graham
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Robathan, Andrew
Timms, Stephen


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Tipping, Paddy


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Touhig, Don


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Tracey, Richard


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Tredinnick, David


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Trend, Michael


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Trimble, David


Rogers, Allan
Trotter, Neville


Rooker, Jeff
Turner, Dennis


Rooney, Terry
Twinn, Dr Ian


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Tyler, Paul


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Rowlands, Ted
Vaz, Keith


Ruddock, Joan
viggers, Peter


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Walden, George


Sackville, Tom
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Salmond, Alex
Wallace, James


Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Waller, Gary


Sedgemore, Brian
Walley, Joan


Shaw, David (Dover)
Ward, John


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Sheerman, Barry
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Wareing, Robert N






Waterson, Nigel
Wilshire, David


Watson, Mike
Wilson, Brian


Watts, John
Winnick, David


Wells, Bowen
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Welsh, Andrew
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)


Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John
Wise, Audrey


Whitney, Ray
Wood, Timothy


Whittingdale, John
Worthington, Tony



Wray, Jimmy


Wicks, Malcolm
Wright, Dr Tony


Widdecombe, Ann
Yeo, Tim


Wiggin, Sir Jerry
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Wigley, Dafydd
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Wilkinson, John



Willetts, David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)
Mr. Robert Hughes and Mr. Michael Brown.


Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)





NOES


Fabricant, Michael
Sims, Roger



Tellers for the Noes



Mr. John Butterfill and Mr. Tony Marlow.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Resolution of the House of 15th July 1947 relating to Privileges shall be amended by adding at the end the words—
'and that in particular no Member of the House shall, in consideration of any remuneration, fee, payment, reward or benefit in kind, direct or indirect, which the Member or any member of his or her family has received is receiving or expects to receive—

(i) advocate or initiate any cause or matter on behalf of any outside body or individual, or
(ii) urge any other Member of either House of Parliament, including Ministers, to do so,
by means of any speech, Question, Motion, introduction of a Bill or amendment to a Motion or Bill'.

Madam Speaker: I remind the House that votes should always follow voices when a Division is called. Will the Leader of the House now move formally motion No. 2?

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That—
(1) with effect from Wednesday 15th November 1995, any Member proposing to enter into an agreement which involves the provision of services in his capacity as a Member of Parliament shall conclude such an agreement only if it conforms to the Resolution of the House of 6th November 1995 relating to Conduct of Members; and that a copy of any such agreement, excluding the amount of any fee or benefit payable, shall be deposited with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards at the same time as it is registered in the Register of Members' Interests;
2) any Member who has an existing agreement involving the provision of services in his capacity as a Member of Parliament which conforms to the Resolution of the House of 6th November 1995 relating to Conduct of Members, but which is not in written form, shall take steps to put the agreement into written form; and that no later than 31st March 1996 a copy of any such agreement, excluding the amount of any fee or benefit payable, shall be deposited with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and registered in the Register of Members' Interests; and
3) any Member who has an existing agreement which does not conform to the Resolution of the House on 6th November 1995 relating to Conduct of Members shall, by 31st March 1996, either redraw the agreement so that it conforms to the said Resolution or withdraw from the agreement; and that a copy of any such redrawn agreement, excluding the amount of any fee or benefit payable, shall

be deposited with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and registered in the Register of Members' Interests by that date.—[Mr. Newton.]

Amendment proposed: (b) in line 6, leave out from 'a' to 'shall' in line 7 and insert
'full copy of any such agreement including the fees or benefits payable in bands of: up to £1,000, £1,000–£5,000, £5,000–£10,000, and thereafter in bands of £5,000.'.—[Mrs. Ann Taylor.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 322, Noes 271.

Division No. 234]
[7.34 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Adams, Mrs Irene
Corbett, Robin


Ainger, Nick
Corbyn, Jeremy


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Corston, Jean


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Cousins, Jim


Allen, Graham
Cox, Tom


Alton, David
Cummings, John


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Armstrong, Hilary
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John


Ashton, Joe
Cunningham, Roseanna


Austin-Walker, John
Dafis, Cynog


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Dalyell, Tam


Barnes, Harry
Darling, Alistair


Barron, Kevin
Davidson, Ian


Battle, John
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Bayley, Hugh
Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Bell, Stuart
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Day, Stephen


Bennett, Andrew F
Denham, John


Benton, Joe
Dewar, Donald


Bermingham, Gerald
Dixon, Don


Berry, Roger
Dobson, Frank


Betts, Clive
Donohoe, Brian H


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Dowd, Jim


Blunkett David
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Boateng, Paul
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Boyes, Roland
Dykes, Hugh


Bradley, Keith
Eastham, Ken


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Etherington, Bill


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Fabricant, Michael


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Fatchett, Derek


Burden, Richard
Faulds, Andrew


Byers, Stephen
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Caborn, Richard
Fisher, Mark


Callaghan, Jim
Flynn, Paul


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Foster, Don (Bath)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Foulkes, George


Campbell-Savours, D N
Fraser, John


Canavan. Dennis
Fyfe, Maria


Cann, Jamie
Galbraith, Sam


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)
Galloway, George


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gapes, Mike


Chidgey, David
Garrett, John


Chisholm, Malcolm
George, Bruce


Church, Judith
Gerrard, Neil


Clapham, Michael
Godman, Dr Norman A


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Godsiff, Roger


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Gordon, Mildred


Clelland, David
Graham, Thomas


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Coffey, Ann
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Cohen, Harry
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Connarty, Michael
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Grocott, Bruce






Gunnell, John
Mallon, Seamus


Hain, Peter
Mandelson, Peter


Hall, Mike
Marek,Dr John


Hanson, David
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Hardy, Peter
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Harman, Ms Harriet
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Harvey, Nick
Martin, Michael J (Springburn)


Hattersley, Fit Hon Roy
Martlew, Eric


Henderson, Doug
Maxton, John


Hendron, Dr Joe
Meacher, Michael


Heppell, John
Meale, Alan


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Michael, Alun


Hinchliffe, David
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Hodge, Margaret
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Hoey, Kate
Milburn, Alan


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Miller, Andrew


Home Robertson, John
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Hood, Jimmy
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hoon, Geoffrey
Morgan, Rhodri


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Morley, Elliot


Howarth, George (Knowsley North
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)


Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hoyle, Doug
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Mowlam, Marjorie


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Mudie, George


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Mullin, Chris


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Murphy, Paul


Hutton, John
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Illsley, Eric
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Ingram, Adam
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Jamieson, David
O'Hara, Edward


Janner, Greville
Olner, Bill


Johnston, Sir Russell
O'Neill, Martin


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Pearson, Ian


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Pendry, Tom


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Pickthall, Colin


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Pike, Peter L


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Pope, Greg


Jowell, Tessa
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Keen, Alan
Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)


Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Khabra, Piara S
Primarolo, Dawn


Kilfoyle, Peter
Purchase, Ken


Kirkwood, Archy
Quin, Ms Joyce


Legg, Barry
Radice, Giles


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Randall, Stuart


Lewis, Terry
Raynsford, Nick


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Redmond, Martin


Litherland, Robert
Reid, Dr John


Livingstone, Ken
Rendel, David


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Loyden, Eddie
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Lynne, Ms Liz
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


McAllton, John
Roche, Mrs Barbara


McAvoy, Thomas
Rogers, Allan


McCartney, Ian
Rooker, Jeff


McCartney, Robert
Rooney, Terry


Macdonald, Calum
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McFall, John
Rowlands, Ted


McGrady, Eddie
Ruddock, Joan


McKelvey, William
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Mackinlay, Andrew
Salmond, Alex


McLeish, Henry
Sedgemore, Brian


Maclennan, Robert
Sheerman, Barry


McMaster, Gordon
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McNamara, Kevin
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


MacShane, Denis
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


McWilliam, John
Short, Clare


Madden, Max
Simpson, Alan


Maddock, Diana
Sims, Roger


Mahon, Alice
Skinner, Dennis





Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Turner, Dennis


Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)
Tyler, Paul


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Vaz, Keith


Snape, Peter
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Soley, Clive
Wallace, James


Spearing, Nigel
Waller, Gary


Spellar.John
Walley, Joan


Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Wareing, Robert N


Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Watson, Mike


Steinberg, Gerry
Welsh, Andrew


Stevenson, George
Wicks, Malcolm


Stewart, Allan
Wigley, Dafydd


Stott Roger
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Strang, Dr. Gavin
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Straw, Jack
Wilshire, David


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Wilson, Brian


Sweeney, Walter
Winnick, David


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Wise, Audrey


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Worthington, Tony


Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
Wray, Jimmy


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Wright, Dr Tony


Thurnham, Peter
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Timms, Stephen



Tipping, Paddy
Tellers for the Ayes:


Touhig, Don
Mr. John Evans and Ms Angela Eagle.


Tredinnick, David





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Coe, Sebastian


Alexander, Richard
Colvin, Michael


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Congdon, David


Amess, David
Conway, Derek


Ancram, Michael
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Arbuthnot, James
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Couchman, James


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Cran, James


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Baldry, Tony
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Devlin, Tim


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Dicks, Terry


Bates, Michael
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Batiste, Spencer
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bellingham, Henry
Dover, Den


Bendall, Vivian
Duncan, Alan


Beresford, Sir Paul
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Dunn, Bob


Boswell, Tim
Durant, Sir Anthony


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Eggar, Rt Hon Tim


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Elletson, Harold


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Bowis, John
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Brandreth, Gyles
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Brazier, Julian
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Bright, Sir Graham
Evennett, David


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Faber, David


Browning, Mrs Angela
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Budgen, Nicholas
Fishburn, Dudley


Burns, Simon
Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)


Burt, Alistair
Forth, Eric


Butler, Peter
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Butterfill, John
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Carrington, Matthew
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Cash, William
French, Douglas


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Gale, Roger


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Gardiner, Sir George


Clappison, James
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Garnier, Edward


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Gillan, Cheryl






Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Mans, Keith


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Mates, Michael


Gorst, Sir John
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Merchant, Piers


Grylls, Sir Michael
Mills, Iain


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hague, Rt Hon William
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Hamilton, Sir Archibald
Moate, Sir Roger


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy
Moss, Malcolm


Hannam, Sir John
Needham, Rt Hon Richard


Hargreaves, Andrew
Nelson, Anthony


Harris, David
Neubert, Sir Michael


Haselhurst, Sir Alan
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hawkins, Nick
Nicholls, Patrick


Hayes, Jerry
Norris, Steve


Heald, Oliver
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Oppenheim, Phillip


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Ottaway, Richard


Hendry, Charles
Page, Richard


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Paice, James


Hicks, Robert
Patrick, Sir Irvine


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Pawsey, James


Horam, John
Pickles, Eric


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Porter, David (Waveney)


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Powell, William (Corby)


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hunter, Andrew
Richards, Rod


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Riddick, Graham


Jack, Michael
Robathan, Andrew


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Jenkin, Bernard
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Jessel, Toby
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Sackville, Tom


Key, Robert
Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


King, Rt Hon Tom
Shaw, David (Dover)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knapman, Roger
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Shersby, Sir Michael


Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Knox, Sir David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Soames, Nicholas


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Speed, Sir Keith


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Leigh, Edward
Spink, Dr Robert


Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Spring, Richard


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Sproat, Iain


Lidington, David
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Lightbown, Sir David
Steen, Anthony


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Stephen, Michael


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Stern, Michael


Lord, Michael
Streeter, Gary


Luff, Peter
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


MacKay, Andrew
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Thomason, Roy


McLoughlin, Patrick
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Madel, Sir David
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Maitland, Lady Olga
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Malone, Gerald
Tracey, Richard





Trend, Michael
Whitney, Ray


Trotter, Neville
Whittingdale, John


Twinn, Dr Ian
Widdecombe, Ann


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Viggers, Peter
Wilkinson, John


Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Willetts, David


Walden, George
Winterton, Mrs Arm (Congleton)



Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)


Walker, Bill (N Tayside)
Wood, Timothy


Ward, John
Yeo, Tim


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Waterson, Nigel



Watts, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Wells, Bowen
Mr. Michael Brown and Mr. Robert C. Hughes.


Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

Question accordingly agreed to.

Madam Speaker: Amendments (c) and (d) fall. May we be clear that amendment.(e), in the name of the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), is withdrawn in favour of amendment (f).

Mr. Wilshire: I withdraw the amendment.

Amendment proposed: (f), in line 9, at end insert
`and made available for inspection by the public'.—[Mrs. Ann Taylor.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House proceeded to a Division.

Mr. Devlin: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Amendment (f) appears to repeat the wording of the last line of the amendment on which the House has just voted. In my view, therefore, amendment (f) is necessary.

Madam Speaker: The House is dividing on amendment (f).

The House having divided: Ayes 325, Noes 202.

Division No. 235]
[7.50 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)


Adams, Mrs Irene
Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)


Ainger, Nick
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Burden, Richard


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Byers, Stephen


Allen, Graham
Caborn, Richard


Alton, David
Callaghan, Jim


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Armstrong, Hilary
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Ashton, Joe
Campbell-Savours, D N


Austin-Walker, John
Canavan, Dennis


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Cann, Jamie


Barnes, Harry
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)


Barron, Kevin
Carrington, Matthew


Battle, John
Chidgey, David


Bayley, Hugh
Chisholm, Malcolm


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Church, Judith


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Clapham, Michael


Bell, Stuart
Clark Dr David (South Shields)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Benton, Joe
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Bermingham, Gerald
Clelland, David


Berry, Roger
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Betts, Clive
Coffey, Ann


Blunkett, David
Cohen, Harry


Boateng, Paul
Connarty, Michael


Boyes, Roland
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Bradley, Keith
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Corbett, Robin






Corbyn, Jeremy
Hoey, Kate


Corston, Jean
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Cousins, Jim
Home Robertson, John


Cox, Tom
Hood, Jimmy


Cummings, John
Hoon, Geoffrey


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Howarth, George (Knowsley North)


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)


Cunningham, Roseanna
Hoyle, Doug


Dafis, Cynog
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Dalyell, Tam
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Darling, Alistair
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Davidson, Ian
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Hutton, John


Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)
Illsley, Eric


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Ingram, Adam


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Day, Stephen
Jamieson, David


Denham, John
Janner, Greville


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Johnston, Sir Russell


Dewar, Donald
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Dixon, Don
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Dobson, Frank
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Donohoe, Brian H
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Dowd, Jim
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Jowell, Tessa


Eagle, Ms Angela
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Eastham, Ken
Keen, Alan


Etherington, Bill
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Kennedy, Jane (L'pod Br'dg'n)


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Key, Robert


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Khabra, Piara S


Fabricant, Michael
Kilfoyle, Peter


Fatchett Derek
Kirkwood, Archy


Faulds, Andrew
Legg, Barry


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Fisher, Mark
Lewis, Terry


Flynn, Paul
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Litherland, Robert


Foster, Don (Bath)
Livingstone, Ken


Foulkes, George
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Fraser, John
Loyden, Eddie


Fyfe, Maria
Lynne, Ms Liz


Galbraith, Sam
McAllion, John


Galloway, George
McAvoy, Thomas


Gapes, Mike
McCartney, Ian


Garrett, John
McCartney, Robert


George, Bruce
Macdonald, Calum


Gerrard, Neil
McFall, John


Godman, Dr Norman A
McGrady, Eddie


Godsiff, Roger
McKelvey, William


Golding, Mrs Llin
Mackinlay, Andrew


Gordon, Mildred
McLeish, Henry


Graham, Thomas
Maclennan, Robert


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
McMaster, Gordon


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
McNamara, Kevin


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
MacShane, Denis


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
McWilliam, John


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Madden, Max


Grocott, Bruce
Maddock, Diana


Gunnell, John
Mahon, Alice


Hain, Peter
Mallon, Seamus


Hanson, David
Mandelson, Peter


Hardy, Peter
Marek, Dr John


Harman, Ms Harriet
Marlow, Tony


Harris, David
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Harvey, Nick
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Henderson, Doug
Martin, Michael J (Springburn)


Hendron, Dr Joe
MarrJew, Eric


Heppell, John
Maxton, John


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Meacher, Michael


Hinchliffe, David
Meale, Alan


Hodge, Margaret
Michael, Alun





Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Milburn, Alan
Short, Clare


Miller, Andrew
Simpson, Alan


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Sims, Roger


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Skinner, Dennis


Morgan, Rhodri
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Morley, Elliot
Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Snape, Peter


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Soley, Clive


Mowlam, Marjorie
Spearing, Nigel


Mudie, George
Spellar, John


Mullin, Chris
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Murphy, Paul
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Steinberg, Gerry


O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)
Stevenson, George


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Stott, Roger


O'Hara, Edward
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Olner, Bill
Straw, Jack


O'Neill, Martin
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Sweeney, Walter


Pearson, Ian
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Pendry, Tom
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Pickthall, Colin
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Pike, Peter L
Thurnham, Peter


Pope, Greg
Timms, Stephen


Porter, David (Waveney)
Tipping, Paddy


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Touhig, Don


Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)
Tredinnick, David


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Trimble, David



Turner, Dennis


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Tyler, Paul


Primarolo, Dawn
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Purchase, Ken
Wallace James


Quin, Ms Joyce
Waller, Gary


Radice, Giles
Walley, Joan


Randall, Stuart
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Raynsford, Nick
Wareing, Robert N


Redmond, Martin
Watson, Mike


Reid, Dr John
Welsh, Andrew


Rendel, David
Wicks, Malcolm


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Wigley, Dafydd


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Wilkinson, John


Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Wilshire, David


Rogers, Allan
Wilson, Brian


Rooker, Jeff
Winnick, David


Rooney, Terry
Wise, Audrey


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Worthington, Tony


Rowlands, Ted
Wray, Jimmy


Ruddock, Joan
Wright, Dr Tony


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Salmond, Alex



Sedgemore, Brian
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sheerman, Barry
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett and Mr. Mike Hall.


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Beresford, Sir Paul


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Alexander, Richard
Boswell, Tim


Amess, David
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)


Ancram, Michael
Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia


Arbuthnot, James
Bowis, John


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Brandreth, Gyles


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Brazier, Julian


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Bright, Sir Graham


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Baldry, Tony
Browning, Mrs Angela


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Budgen, Nicholas


Bates, Michael
Burns, Simon


Batiste, Spencer
Burt, Alistair


Bellingham, Henry
Butler, Peter






Cash, William
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Knox, Sir David


Clappison, James
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Coe, Sebastian
Leigh, Edward


Conway, Derek
Lidington, David


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Luff, Peter


Couchman, James
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Cran, James
MacKay, Andrew


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Maitland, Lady Olga


Devlin, Tim
Malone, Gerald


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Mans, Keith


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Dover, Den
Mates, Michael


Duncan, Alan
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Dunn, Bob
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Durant, Sir Anthony
Merchant Piers


Eggar, Rt Hon Tim
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Elletson, Harold
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Moate, Sir Roger


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Moss, Malcolm


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Needham, Rt Hon Richard


Evennett, David
Nelson, Anthony


Faber, David
Neubert, Sir Michael


Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Forth, Eric
Nicholls, Patrick


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Norris, Steve


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Oppenheim, Phillip


French, Douglas
Ottaway, Richard


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Page, Richard


Garnier, Edward
Paice, James


Gillan, Cheryl
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Patten, Rt Hon John


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Pickles, Eric


Gorst Sir John
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Grylls, Sir Michael
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Richards, Rod


Hague, Rt Hon William
Riddick, Graham


Hamilton, Sir Archibald
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Hannam, Sir John
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Hargreaves, Andrew
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Hawkins, Nick
Sackville, Tom


Heald, Oliver
Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Shaw, David (Dover)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Hendry, Charles
Shersby, Sir Michael


Heseftine, Rt Hon Michael
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Hicks, Robert
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Soames, Nicholas


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Speed, Sir Keith


Horam, John
Spencer, Sir Derek


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Spink, Dr Robert


Hunter, Andrew
Spring, Richard


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Sproat, Iain


Jack, Michael
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Jenkin, Bernard
Steen, Anthony


Jessel, Toby
Stern, Michael


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Streeter, Gary


Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Knapman, Roger
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)





Trend, Michael
Whittingdale, John


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Widdecombe, Ann


Viggers, Peter
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Willetts, David


Walden, George
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Walker, Bill (N Tayside)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Ward, John
Wood, Timothy


Waterson, Nigel
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Watts, John



Wells, Bowen
Tellers for the Noes:


Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John
Mr. Michael Brown and Mr. Robert C. Hughes.


Whitney, Ray

Question accordingly agreed to.

Amendment made: (g), in line 14, leave out from 'a' to 'shall' in line 16 and insert
`full copy of any such agreement including the fees or benefits payable in bands of: up to £1,000, £1,000–£5,000, £5,000–£10,000, and thereafter in bands of £.5,000.'.—[Mrs. Ann Taylor.]

Madam Speaker: Amendment (h) now falls.

Amendment made: (i), in line 17, after 'Interests', insert
`and made available for inspection by the public'.—[Mrs. Ann Taylor.]

Madam Speaker: Amendment (j) therefore falls.

Amendment made: (k), in line 22, leave out from 'a' to `shall' in line 23 and insert
`full copy of any such agreement including the fees or benefits payable in bands of: up to £1,000, £1,000–£5,000, £5,000–£10,000, and thereafter in bands of £5,000.'.—[Mrs. Ann Taylor.]

Madam Speaker: Amendment (1) in the name of the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright) now falls.

Amendment made: (m), in line 24, at end add
`and made available for inspection by the public'.—[Mrs. Ann Taylor.]

Madam Speaker: I understand that the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood has withdrawn amendment (n). Is that clear? Amendment (o) now falls.

Amendment proposed: (p) in line 24, at end add—
`(4) notwithstanding the provisions of paragraphs 1–3 of this Resolution with effect from Wednesday 15th November 1995, no Member shall enter into an agreement for the provision of services in his/her capacity as a Member of Parliament with any individual or organisation engaged in lobbying or public relations on behalf of more than one client:.—[Mr. Salmond.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 48, Noes 243.

Division No. 236]
[8.04 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Foster, Don (Bath)


Alton, David
Godsiff, Roger


Ashton, Joe
Gordon, Mildred


Austin-Walker, John
Harvey, Nick


Barnes, Harry
Hoey, Kate


Body, Sir Richard
Hughes, Simon (Southward)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Canavan, Dennis
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Chidgey, David
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Kirkwood, Archy


Cunningham, Roseanna
Litherland, Robert


Dafis, Cynog
Livingstone, Ken


Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)
Loyden, Eddie


Flynn, Paul
Lynne, Ms Liz






Mackinlay, Andrew
Spearing, Nigel


Maclennan, Robert
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Maddock, Diana
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Michle, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Trimble, David


Michle, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Tyler, Paul


Mills, Iain
Wallace, James


Mullin, Chris
Wigley, Dafydd


Rendel, David
Wise, Audrey


Salmond, Alex



Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Simpson, Alan
Mrs. Margaret Ewing and Mr. Andrew Welsh.


Skinner, Dennis





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Dunn, Bob


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Durant, Sir Anthony


Alexander, Richard
Eggar, Rt Hon Tim


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Elletson, Harold


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Amess, David
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Ancram, Michael
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Arbuthnot, James
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Ashby, David
Evennett David


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Faber, David


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Fabricant, Michael


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Fishburn, Dudley


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)


Baldry, Tony
Forth, Eric


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Bates, Michael
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Batiste, Spencer
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Bellingham, Henry
French, Douglas


Beresford, Sir Paul
Gale, Roger


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gallie, Phil


Booth, Hartley
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Boswel, Tim
Garnier, Edward


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Gillan, Cheryl


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Bowis, John
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Gorst, Sir John


Brandreth, Gyles
Grant Sir A (SW Cambs)


Brazier, Julian
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bright, Sir Graham
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Grylls, Sir Michael


Browning, Mrs Angela
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Budgen, Nicholas
Hague, Rt Hon William


Burns, Simon
Hamilton, Sir Archibald


Burt, Alistair
Hampson, Dr Keith


Butler, Peter
Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hannam, Sir John


Cash, William
Hargreaves, Andrew


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Harris, David


Clappison, James
Haselhurst, Sir Alan


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hawkins, Nick


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Hayes, Jerry


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Heald, Oliver


Coe, Sebastian
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Colvin, Michael
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Conway, Derek
Hendry, Charles


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (Grantham)


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Horam, John


Couchman, James
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Cran, James
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Hunter, Andrew


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Jack, Michael


Dicks, Terry
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Jenkin, Bernard


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jessel, Toby


Dover, Den
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Duncan, Alan
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)





Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Key, Robert
Sackville, Tom


Kirkhope, Timothy
Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Knapman, Roger
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Shersby, Sir Michael


Knox, Sir David
Sims, Roger


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Soames, Nicholas


Leigh, Edward
Speed, Sir Keith


Lidington, David
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Luff, Peter
Spink, Dr Robert


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Sproat, Iain


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


MacKay, Andrew
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Steen, Anthony


McLoughlin, Patrick
Stern, Michael


Maitland, Lady Olga
Streeter, Gary


Malone, Gerald
Sumberg, David


Mans, Keith
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Mates, Michael
Thomason, Roy


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Merchant Piers
Townend, John (Bridlington)



Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Tracey, Richard


Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Tredinnick, David


Moate, Sir Roger
Trend, Michael


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Trotter Neville


Moss, Malcolm
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Needham, Rt Hon Richard
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Nelson, Anthony
Walden, George


Neubert, Sir Michael
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Waller, Gary


Nicholls, Patrick
Ward, John


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Waterson, Nigel


Norris, Steve
Watts, John


Oppenheim, Phillip
Wells, Bowen


Ottaway, Richard
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Page, Richard
Whitney, Ray


Paice, James
Whittingdale, John


Patnick, Sir Irvine
Widdecombe, Ann


Patten, Rt Hon John
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Pickles, Eric
Wilkinson, John


Porter, David (Waveney)
Willetts, David


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Winterton, Mrs Arm (Congleton)


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Richards, Rod
Wood, Timothy


Riddick, Graham
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Robathan, Andrew



Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Tellers for the Noes:


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Mr. Michael Brown and Mr. Robert C. Hughes.


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question, as amended, agreed to.

Resolved,
That—
(1) with effect from Wednesday 15th November 1995, any Member proposing to enter into an agreement which involves the provision of services in his capacity as a Member of Parliament shall conclude such an agreement only if it conforms to the Resolution of the House of 6th November 1995 relating to Conduct of Members; and that a full copy of any such agreement including the fees or benefits payable in bands of: up to £1,000, £1,000–5,000,


£5,000–£10,000, and thereafter in bands of £5,000, shall be deposited with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards at the same time as it is registered in the Register of Members' Interests and made available for inspection by the public;
(2) any Member who has an existing agreement involving the provision of services in his capacity as a Member of Parliament which conforms to the Resolution of the House of 6th November 1995 relating to Conduct of Members, but which is not in written form, shall take steps to put the agreement into written form; and that no later than 31st March 1996 a full copy of any such agreement including the fees or benefits payable in bands of: up to £1,000, £1,000–£5,000, £5,000–£10,000, and thereafter in bands of £5,000 shall be deposited with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and registered in the Register of Members' Interests and made available for inspection by the public; and
(3) any Member who has an existing agreement which does not conform to the Resolution of the House on 6th November 1995 relating to Conduct of Members shall, by 31st March 1996, either redraw the agreement so that it conforms to the said Resolution or withdraw from the agreement; and that a full copy of any such agreement including the fees or benefits payable in bands of: up to £1,000, £1,000–£5,000, £5,000–£10,000 and thereafter in bands of £5,000 shall be deposited with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and registered in the Register of Members' Interests by that date and made available for inspection by the public.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House agrees with the recommendations in the Second Report from the Select Committee on Standards in Public Life (House of Commons Paper No. 816) relating to—
(1) the recording of deputations in the Register of Members' Interests (paragraph 31); and
(2) the cessation of paid advocacy (paragraph 54).—[Mr. Newton.]

Amendment proposed: (a), in line 4, leave out paragraph (1).—[Mrs. Ann Taylor.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 291, Noes 266.

Division No. 237]
[8.15 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)


Adams, Mrs Irene
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Ainger, Nick
Burden, Richard


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Byers, Stephen


Allen, Graham
Caborn, Richard


Alton, David
Callaghan, Jim


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Armstrong, Hilary
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Ashton, Joe
Campbell-Savours, D N


Austin-Walker, John
Canavan, Dennis


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Cann, Jamie


Barnes, Harry
Chidgey, David


Barron, Kevin
Chisholm, Malcolm


Battle, John
Church, Judith


Bayley, Hugh
Clapham, Michael


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Bell, Stuart
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Clelland, David


Bennett, Andrew F
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Benton, Joe
Coffey, Ann


Bermingham, Gerald
Cohen, Harry


Berry, Roger
Connarty, Michael


Betts, Clive
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Blunkett, David
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Boateng, Paul
Corbett, Robin


Boyes, Roland
Corbyn, Jeremy


Bradley, Keith
Corston, Jean


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Cousins, Jim


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Cox, Tom





Cummings, John
Hutton, John


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Illsley, Eric


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Ingram, Adam


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Cunningham, Roseanna
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Dafis, Cynog
Jamieson, David


Dalyell, Tam
Janner, Greville


Darling, Alistair
Johnston, Sir Russell


Davidson, Ian
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Denham, John
Jowell, Tessa


Dewar, Donald
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Dixon, Don
Keen, Alan


Dobson, Frank
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)


Donohoe, Brian H
Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)


Dowd, Jim
Khabra, Piara S


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Kilfoyle, Peter


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Kirkwood, Archy


Eastham, Ken
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Etherington, Bill
Lewis, Terry


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Fatchett, Derek
Litherland, Robert


Faulds, Andrew
Livingstone, Ken


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Fisher, Mark
Loyden, Eddie


Flynn, Paul
Lynne, Ms Liz


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
McAllion, John


Foster, Don (Bath)
McAvoy, Thomas


Foulkes, George
McCartney, Ian


Fraser, John
Macdonald, Calum


Fyfe, Maria
McFall, John


Galbraith, Sam
McKelvey, William


Galloway, George
Mackinlay, Andrew


Gapes, Mike
McLeish, Henry


Garrett, John
Maclennan, Robert


George, Bruce
McMaster, Gordon


Gerard, Neil
McNamara, Kevin


Godman, Dr Norman A
MacShane, Denis


Godsiff, Roger
McWilliam, John


Golding, Mrs Llin
Madden, Max


Gordon, Mildred
Maddock, Diana


Graham, Thomas
Mahon, Alice


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Mallon, Seamus


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Mandelson, Peter


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Marek, Dr John


Grocott, Bruce
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Gunnell, John
Martin, Michael J (Springburn)


Hain, Peter
Martlew, Eric


Hall, Mike
Maxton, John


Hanson, David
Meacher, Michael


Hardy, Peter
Meale, Alan


Harman, Ms Harriet
Michael, Alun


Harvey, Nick
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Henderson, Doug
Milburn, Alan


Heppell, John
Miller, Andrew


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Hinchliffe, David
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hodge, Margaret
Morgan, Rhodri


Hoey, Kate
Morley, Elliot


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)


Home Robertson, John
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hood, Jimmy
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Hoon, Geoffrey
Mowlam, Marjorie


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Mudie, George


Howarth, George (Knowsley North)
Mullin, Chris


Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)
Murphy, Paul


Hoyle, Doug
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
O'Hara, Edward


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Olner, Bill






O'Neill, Martin
Soley, Clive


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Spearing, Nigel


Pearson, Ian
Spellar, John


Pendry, Tom
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Pickthall, Colin
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Pike, Peter L
Steinberg, Gerry


Pope, Greg
Stevenson, George


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Stott, Roger


Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Straw, Jack


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Primarolo, Dawn
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Purchase, Ken
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Quin, Ms Joyce
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Radice, Giles
Timms, Stephen


Randall, Stuart
Tipping, Paddy


Raynsford, Nick
Touhig, Don


Redmond, Martin
Trimble, David


Reid, Dr John
Turner, Dennis


Rendel, David
Tyler, Paul


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)
Walley, Joan



Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Wareing Robert N


Rogers, Allan
Watson, Mike


Rooker, Jeff
Welsh, Andrew


Rooney, Terry
Wicks, Malcolm


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Wigley, Dafydd


Rowlands, Ted



Ruddock, Joan
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)



Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Salmond, Alex
Wilson, Brian


Sedgemore, Brian
Winnick, David


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Wise, Audrey


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Worthington, Tony


Short, Clare
Wray, Jimmy


Simpson, Alan
Wright, Dr Tony


Skinner, Dennis
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)



Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Mr. John Evans and Ms Angela Eagle.


Snape, Peter





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)


Alexander, Richard
Browning, Mrs Angela


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Budgen, Nicholas


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Burns, Simon


Amess, David
Burt, Alistair


Ancram, Michael
Butler, Peter


Arbuthnot, James
Butterfill, John


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)


Ashby, David
Carlisle, John (Luton North)


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Carrington, Matthew


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Cash, William


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Chapman, Sir Sydney


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Clappison, James


Baldry, Tony
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Bates, Michael
Coe, Sebastian


Batiste, Spencer
Congdon, David


Bellingham, Henry
Conway, Derek


Bendall, Vivian
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Booth, Hartley
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Boswell, Tim
Couchman, James


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Cran, James


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Bowis, John
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Brandreth, Gyles
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Brazier, Julian
Devlin, Tim


Bright, Sir Graham
Dicks, Terry





Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Dover, Den
Legg, Barry


Duncan, Alan
Leigh, Edward


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark


Dunn, Bob
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Durant, Sir Anthony
Lidington, David


Eggar, Rt Hon Tim
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Elletson, Harold
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Lord, Michael


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Luff, Peter


Evennett, David
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Faber, David
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Forth, Eric
Madel, Sir David


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Maitland, Lady Olga


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Malone, Gerald


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Mans, Keith


French, Douglas
Marlow, Tony


Gale, Roger
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Garnier, Edward
Mates, Michael


Gillan, Cheryl
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Merchant, Piers


Gorst, Sir John
Mills, Iain


Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Moate, Sir Roger


Grylls, Sir Michael
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Moss, Malcolm


Hague, Rt Hon William
Needham, Rt Hon Richard


Hamilton, Sir Archibald
Nelson, Anthony


Hampson, Dr Keith
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hannam, Sir John
Nicholls, Patrick


Hargreaves, Andrew
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Harris, David
Norris, Steve


Haselhurst, Sir Alan
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Hawkins, Nick
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hayes, Jerry
Ottaway, Richard


Heald, Oliver
Page, Richard


Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Paice, James


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Patrick, Sir Irvine


Hendry, Charles
Pawsey, James


Hicks, Robert
Pickles, Eric


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Horam, John
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Richards, Rod


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Riddick, Graham


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Robathan, Andrew


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Jack, Michael
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Jenkin, Bernard
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Jessel, Toby
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Sackville, Tom


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Shaw, David (Dover)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Key, Robert
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Shersby, Sir Michael


Kirkhope, Timothy
Sims, Roger


Knapman, Roger
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Soames, Nicholas


Knox, Sir David
Speed, Sir Keith


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)






Spink, Dr Robert
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Spring, Richard
Viggers, Peter


Sproat, Iain
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Walden, George


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Steen, Anthony
Waller, Gary


Stephen, Michael
Ward, John


Stern, Michael
Waterson, Nigel


Streeter, Gary
Watts, John


Sumberg, David
Wells, Bowen


Sweeney, Walter
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John



Whitney, Ray


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Whittingdale, John


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Widdecombe, Ann


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Wilkinson, John


Thomason, Roy
Willetts, David


Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Thornton, Sir Malcolm
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)
Wood, Timothy


Tracey, Richard
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Tredinnick, David



Trend, Michael
Tellers for the Noes:


Trotter, Neville
Mr. Michael Fabricant and Mr. Jacques Arnold.


Twinn, Dr Ian

Question accordingly agreed to.

Amendment proposed: (b), in line 6, at end add
`and further that a Member with a paid interest should not initiate or participate in, including attendance, a delegation where the problem affects only the body from which he has a paid interest.'.—[Mrs. Ann Taylor.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 289, Noes 264.

Division No. 238]
[8.30 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Adams, Mrs Irene
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Ainger, Nick
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Campbell-Savours, D N


Allen, Graham
Canavan, Dennis


Alton, David
Cann, Jamie


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Chidgey, David


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Chisholm, Malcolm


Armstrong, Hilary
Church, Judith


Ashton, Joe
Clapham, Michael


Austin-Walker, John
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Barnes, Harry
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Barron, Kevin
Clelland, David


Battle, John
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Bayley, Hugh
Coffey, Ann


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Cohen, Harry


Beith,Rt Hon A J
Connarty, Michael


Bell, Stuart
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Benton, Joe
Corbett, Robin


Bermingham, Gerald
Corbyn, Jeremy


Berry, Roger
Corston, Jean


Betts, Clive
Cousins, Jim


Blunkett, David
Cox, Tom


Boateng, Paul
Cummings, John


Boyes, Roland
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Bradley, Keith
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Cunningham, Roseanna


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Dafis, Cynog


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Dalyell, Tam


Burden, Richard
Darling, Alistair


Byers, Stephen
Davidson, Ian


Caborn, Richard
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Callaghan, Jim
Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)





Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Denham.John
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Dewar, Donald
Jowell, Tessa


Dixon, Don
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Dobson, Frank
Keen, Alan


Donohoe, Brian H
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)


Dowd, Jim
Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Khabra, Piara S


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Kilfoyle, Peter


Eagle, Ms Angela
kirkwood, Archy


Eastham, Ken
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Etherington, Bill
Lewis, Terry


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Litherland, Robert


Fatchett, Derek
Livingstone, Ken


Faulds, Andrew
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Loyden, Eddie


Fisher, Mark
Lynne, Ms Liz


Flynn, Paul
McAllion, John


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
McAvoy, Thomas


Foster, Don (Bath)
McCartney, Ian


Foulkes, George
Macdonald, Calum


Fraser, John
McFall, John


Fyfe, Maria
McKelvey, William


Galbraith, Sam
Mackinlay, Andrew


Galloway, George
McLeish, Henry


Gapes, Mike
Maclennan, Robert


Garrett, John
McMaster, Gordon


George, Bruce
McNamara, Kevin


Gerrard, Neil
MacShane, Denis


Godman, Dr Norman A
McWilliam, John


Godsiff, Roger
Madden, Max


Golding, Mrs Llin
Maddock, Diana


Gordon, Mildred
Mahon, Alice


Graham, Thomas
Mandelson, Peter


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Marek, Dr John


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Martin, Michael J (Springburn)


Grocott, Bruce
Martlew, Eric


Gunnell, John
Maxton, John


Hain, Peter
Meacher, Michael


Hanson, David
Meale, Alan


Hardy, Peter
Michael, Alun


Harman, Ms Harriet
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Harvey, Nick
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Milburn, Alan


Henderson, Doug
Miller, Andrew


Heppell, John
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hinchliffe, David
Morgan, Rhodri


Hodge, Margaret
Morley, Elliot


Hoey, Kate
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Home Robertson, John
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Hood, Jimmy
Mowlam, Marjorie


Hoon, Geoffrey
Mudie, George


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Mullin, Chris


Howarth, George (Knowsley North)
Murphy, Paul


Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Hoyle, Doug
O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
O'Hara, Edward


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Olner, Bill


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
O'Neill, Martin


Hutton, John
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Illsley, Eric
Pearson, Ian


Ingram, Adam
Pendry, Tom


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Pickthall, Colin


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Pike, Peter L


Jamieson, David
Pope, Greg


Janner, Greville
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Johnston, Sir Russell
Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Primarolo, Dawn






Purchase, Ken
Stevenson, George


Quin, Ms Joyce
Stott, Roger


Radice, Giles
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Randall, Stuart
Straw, Jack


Raynsford, Nick
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Redmond, Martin
Sweeney, Walter


Reid, Dr John
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Rendel, David
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)
Timms, Stephen


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Tipping, Paddy


Rogers, Allan
Touhig, Don


Rooker, Jeff
Trimble, David


Rooney, Terry
Turner, Dennis


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Tyler, Paul


Rowlands, Ted
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Ruddock, Joan
Walley, Joan


Salmond, Alex
Wareing, Robert N


Sedgemore, Brian
Watson, Mike


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Welsh, Andrew


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Wicks, Malcolm



Wigley, Dafydd


Short, Clare
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (SW'n W)


Simpson, Alan
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Skinner, Dennis
Wilson, Brian


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Winnick, David


Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)
Wise, Audrey


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Worthington, Tony


Snape, Peter
Wray, Jimmy


Soley, Clive
Wright, Dr Tony


Spearing, Nigel
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Spellar, John



Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Mr. Mike Hall and Mr. Andrew F. Bennett.


Steinberg, Gerry





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Butterfill, John


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)


Alexander, Richard
Carlisle, John (Luton North)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Carrington, Matthew


Amess, David
Cash, William


Ancram, Michael
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Arbuthnot, James
Chapman, Sir Sydney


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Clappison, James


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grove)
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)


Ashby, David
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Coe, Sebastian


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Colvin, Michael


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Congdon, David


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Conway, Derek


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Baldry, Tony
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Bates, Michael
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Batiste, Spencer
Couchman, James


Bellingham, Henry
Cran, James


Bendall, Vivian
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Booth, Hartley
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Boswell, Tim
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Devlin, Tim


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Dicks, Terry


Bowis, John
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Brandreth, Gyles
Dover, Den


Brazier, Julian
Duncan, Alan


Bright, Sir Graham
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Dunn, Bob


Browning, Mrs Angela
Durant, Sir Anthony


Budgen, Nicholas
Eggar, Rt Hon Tim


Burns, Simon
Elletson, Harold


Burt, Alistair
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Butler, Peter
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)





Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Evennett, David
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Faber, David
MacKay, Andrew


Fabricant, Michael
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Fenner, Dame Peggy
McLoughlin, Patrick


Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)
Madel, Sir David


Forth, Eric
Maitland, Lady Olga


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Malone, Gerald


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Mans, Keith


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Marlow, Tony


French, Douglas
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gale, Roger
Mates, Michael


Gallie, Phil
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Garnier, Edward
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Gillan, Cheryl
Merchant, Piers


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Mills, Iain


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Grant Sir A (SW Cambs)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Moss, Malcolm


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Nelson, Anthony


Grylls, Sir Michael
Neubert, Sir Michael


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hague, Rt Hon William
Nicholls, Patrick


Hamilton, Sir Archibald
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Norris, Steve


Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Hannam, Sir John
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hargreaves, Andrew
Ottaway, Richard


Harris, David
Page, Richard


Haselhurst, Sir Alan
Paice, James


Hawkins, Nick
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Heald, Oliver
Pawsey, James


Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Pickles, Eric


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hendry, Charles
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Hicks, Robert
Rathbone, Tim


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Horam, John
Richards, Rod


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Riddick, Graham


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Robathan, Andrew


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Jack, Michael
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Jenkin, Bernard
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Jessel, Toby
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Sackville, Tom


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Shaw, David (Dover)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Key, Robert
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


King, Rt Hon Tom
Shersby, Sir Michael


Kirkhope, Timothy
Sims, Floger


Knapman, Roger
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Soames, Nicholas


Knox, Sir David
Speed, Sir Keith


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Spink, Dr Robert


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Spring, Richard


Legg, Barry
Sproat, Iain


Leigh, Edward
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Steen, Anthony


Lidington, David
Stern, Michael


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Stewart, Allan


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Streeter, Gary


Lord, Michael
Sumberg, David


Luff, Peter
Sweeney, Walter






Tapsell, Sir Peter
Waterson, Nigel


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Watts, John


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Wells, Bowen


Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Thomason, Roy
Whitney, Ray


Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Whittingdale, John


Thornton, Sir Malcolm
Widdecombe, Ann


Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Tracey, Richard
Wilkinson, John


Trend, Michael
Willetts, David


Trotter, Neville
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Twim, Dr Ian
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Wood, Timothy


Viggers, Peter
Yeo, Tim


Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Walden, George



Walker, Bill (N Tayside)
Tellers for the Noes:


Waller, Gary
Mr. Michael Brown and Mr. Robert G. Hughes.


Ward, John

Question accordingly agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House agrees with the recommendations in the Second Report from the Select Committee on Standards in Public Life (House of Commons Paper No. 816) relating to the cessation of paid advocacy (paragraph 54); and further that a Member with a paid interest should not initiate or participate in, including attendance, a delegation where the problem affects only the body from which he has a paid interest.

Ordered,
That—
(1) Standing Order No. 128 (Select Committee on Members' Interests) be repealed;
(2) Standing Order No. 121 (Committee of Privileges) be repealed when the Committee of Privileges shall have reported to the House in respect of the matters of the complaints referred to it; and
(3) Standing Orders (Committee on Standards and Privileges) and (Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards) below be made.
Standing Order (Committee on Standards and Privileges)
(1) There shall be a select committee, called the Committee on Standards and Privileges—

(a) to consider specific matters relating to privileges referred to it by the House;
(b) to oversee the work of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards; to examine the arrangements proposed by the Commissioner for the compilation, maintenance and accessibility of the Register of Members' Interests and any other registers of interest established by the House; to review from time to time the form and content of those registers; and to consider any specific complaints made in relation to the registering or declaring of interests referred to it by the Commissioner; and
(c) to consider any matter relating to the conduct of Members, including specific complaints in relation to alleged breaches in any code of conduct to which the House has agreed and which have been drawn to the committee's attention by the Commissioner; and to recommend any modifications to such code of conduct as may from time to time appear to be necessary.

(2) The committee shall consist of eleven Members, of whom five shall be a quorum.
(3) Unless the House otherwise orders, each Member nominated to the committee shall continue to be a member of it for the remainder of the Parliament.
(4) The committee shall have power to appoint sub-committees consisting of no more than seven Members, of whom three shall be a quorum, and to refer to such sub-committees any of the matters referred to the committee; and shall appoint one such sub-committee to receive reports from the Commissioner relating to investigations into specific complaints.
(5) The committee and any sub-committee shall have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place, to report from time to time and to appoint specialist advisers either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the committee's order of reference.
(6) The committee shall have power to order the attendance of any Member before the committee or any sub-committee and to require that specific documents or records in the possession of a Member relating to its inquiries, or to the inquiries of a sub-committee or of the Commissioner, be laid before the committee or any sub-committee.
(7) The committee shall have power to refuse to allow proceedings to which strangers are admitted to be broadcast.
(8) Mr. Attorney General, the Lord Advocate, Mr. Solicitor General and Mr. Solicitor General for Scotland, being Members of the House, may attend the committee or any sub-committee, may take part in deliberations, may receive committee or sub-committee papers and may give such other assistance to the committee or sub-committee as may be appropriate, but shall not vote or make any motion or move any amendment.
Standing Order (Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards)
(1) There shall be an officer of this House, called the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, who shall be appointed by the House.
(2) The principal duties of the Commissioner shall be—

(a) to maintain the Register of Members' Interests and any other registers of interest established by the House, and to make such arrangements for the compilation, maintenance and accessibility of those registers as are approved by the Committee on Standards and Privileges or an appropriate sub-committee thereof;
(b) to provide advice confidentially to Members and other persons or bodies subject to registration on matters relating to the registration of individual interests;
(c) to advise the Committee on Standards and Privileges, its sub-committees and individual Members on the interpretation of any code of conduct to which the House has agreed and on questions of propriety;
(d) to monitor the operation of such code and registers, and to make recommendations thereon to the Committee on Standards and Privileges or an appropriate sub-committee thereof; and
(e) to receive and, if he thinks fit, investigate specific complaints from Members and from members of the public in respect of—

(i) the registration or declaration of interests, or
(ii) other aspects of the propriety of a Member's conduct,
and to report to the Committee on Standards and Privileges or to an appropriate sub-committee thereof.
(3) The Commissioner may be dismissed by resolution of the House.—[Mr. Newton.]

Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards

Mr. A. J. Beith: I beg to move,
That Sir Gordon Stanley Downey, KCB, be appointed Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards on the terms of the Report of the House of Commons Commission (HC 789), dated 30th October.
It might be helpful if I say a few words about the role of the House of Commons Commission. It was given the task of coming up with a name acceptable to the House, believes that it has done so and invites the House to accept the proposal.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I want to raise a number of points. As a Government Back Bencher, I find it offensive that the. House, through the House of Commons Commission, should seek to appoint Sir Gordon Downey as the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards at a salary of £72,500. I admit that he is a distinguished person, but he is retired and in receipt of a very substantial index-linked pension, yet he will be assessing the position, salary and circumstances of Back Benchers who, for a full week's work, will be in receipt of less than half of his salary. Setting up this gentleman in the position that he will hold is offensive to Parliament. I believe that it is the first time in history that this High Court of Parliament will, to all intents and purposes, have an outsider deciding its behaviour—in short, the behaviour of Members of this House. I do not believe that we should agree to that.
Tonight, the House of Commons has committed suicide. The independence of the House is now very much in doubt, as is its authority and influence. To all intents and purposes, we have set up a House of Commons that will be ruled by the civil service, because the overwhelming majority of hon. Members will have neither the experience nor the authority to exercise an influence that is good for Government, good for Parliament and good for this country.
I say to the House that it will rue this day and rue the decisions that have been taken. It is a pity that the Press Gallery is almost deserted, because it is only a matter of time before Sir Gordon, or a successor, will be looking at the interests of those privileged individuals, the Lobby journalists, who exercise immense influence—dare I say it, much more influence than a Back Bencher? The abilities of Back Benchers will be immensely restricted by the decisions that the House has taken.
I must ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) what expertise Sir Gordon has—

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Bugger all.

Mr. Winterton: The hon. Gentleman is, from time to time, pertinent and accurate in his remarks. I must confess that, while I disagree with the language, I admire his plain speaking.
We have an outsider to this High Court of Parliament. Surely this High Court of Parliament can rule itself, judge itself and, when necessary, penalise those who abuse their

position. But to have an outsider, indeed, a retired outsider, on such a substantial salary—more than twice as much as a Back Bencher and more than a Cabinet Minister—presiding over the standards of those in public life and responsible for standards in this place is offensive.
I know the problems that you face, Madam Speaker, and I well understand why the amendments in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) have not been selected, but perhaps there are times when we should look to other democracies to see how they would operate in such circumstances. Of course, in the United States of America no public servant is in receipt of a salary higher than that of a member of Congress. That rule should obtain in this House. If it did, Members of Parliament would be very much better paid—which they all deserve for the hours that they put in and for the increased work that Parliament decides they should undertake—and, dare I say it to hon. Members on both sides of the House, would better meet the expectations of their electorates.
I rise to speak briefly on this part of our debate in sadness and with regret. I put the question again to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed—

Mr. Skinner: He is a Liberal.

Mr. Winterton: Indeed, he is a Liberal Democrat—educated in my constituency at King's school, but that is only an aside.
What qualifications does Sir Gordon Downey have to undertake the tasks that the House is allocating to him? What justification is there for giving him, as a retired civil servant in receipt of a substantial index-linked pension, a salary of more than twice as much as the people whose standards of behaviour he will be assessing? That is an insult to democracy and a disaster for Parliament. I am very unhappy and sad at what the House has done today to the authority of Parliament.
When I came to the House nearly 25 years ago—

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: A quarter of a century.

Mr. Winterton: My hon. Friend says a quarter of a century ago. It is not yet that long. I hope that I may be honoured to serve my constituents for a quarter of century and beyond. I hope that they will accept that at no time in the years that I have been the Member for Macclesfield have I done anything dishonourable about which I would not be prepared to talk to them openly.
How can the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, who chairs the House of Commons Commission—I apologise Madam Speaker: you chair it and he speaks on its behalf—justify to the House what the Commission is doing in appointing this individual to deal with what I agree are very important matters? I believe that standards of behaviour are critical. Sadly, I do not believe that what the House has done tonight will improve the image of Parliament in the eyes of electorate. That can be done only by the individual examples of every right hon. or hon. Member.
I seek to set an example and I know that many other hon. Members do so too. The fact that there are a few rotten apples in the basket does not mean that the whole House should be summed up in that way. I believe that Parliament has served the United Kingdom well. I fear


that it will not be able to do so in future and I hope that the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed will justify what we are supposed to agree to tonight.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: I understand that some years ago the Government Whips Office offered a jeroboam of champagne to anybody who spotted the late Bonner Pink and Sir Frederic Bennett in the Division Lobby at the same time. I do not know whether that champagne was ever called upon but it could also have been offered for the first occasion on which my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) appeared together on an amendment to a motion.
My hon. Friend and I proposed amendments because we both have a keen sense of the ridiculous. As someone who has wanted to be a Member of the House for as long as I can remember, and as someone with a sense of history and of the traditions of the House, I am worried that, despite all the partisan glee on the Opposition Benches—which will continue as the night goes on—we are in severe collective danger as a House of Commons of making ourselves ridiculous.
It is worth pausing and reflecting for one moment on how we got into this position at all. It was because two stupid, silly greedy Members did something that most of us would never do. The story that both sides of the House should have run with was that, of the 20 hon. Members approached, only two behaved in that way—80 per cent. did not. That is the message that we should have communicated to the people outside. We signally failed to do so.
After that, it was downhill all the way, with a committee presided over by a judge who made it clear at the outset that he had already reached his conclusions and was hoping to find some evidence to back them up. Those of us who have made a living in the courts often suspected that that is what the judiciary did but we had not expected to have it confirmed in such a spectacular way.
From inauspicious and tiny beginnings, we have reached the position that we are in today. Whatever else we say, we should not disguise from ourselves the anomalous and paradoxical situation that we have created. How on earth can we ask Sir Gordon Downey to police a distinction between our advisory work and the other things that we do?
For example, I heard the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) on a radio programme yesterday. He was being employed not for the lightness of his wit or the elegance of his table manners but because he was a Member of Parliament.
I have a high regard for my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) but having briefly, in a misguided moment, dipped into "A Parliamentary Affair", I should think that people would read that book not because they think that she is the personification of Tolstoy but because they think that, as a Member of Parliament, she might have something to say.
Those are examples of hon. Members receiving remuneration that arises directly from their membership of the House. They are not included in the proposed arrangements. Why not? It is because too many Labour Members would suddenly find that they had to declare

their income. It would mean that we would have to find out—because morality is absolute and does not start only tonight—from the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) how much she was, until recently, really paid by Westminster Communications. We could find out how a former Labour Prime Minister was able to buy a Suffolk dairy farm on the wage of a Back-Bench Member of Parliament.
We could go into a great deal to try to get a vision of the matter. A commissioner for ethics? I do not know where Opposition Members have been. I have about 75,000 commissioners for ethics—my electorate. I have the judgment of my peers, of my hon. Friends and of Opposition Members. There are many examples of hon. Members whom one may not like but whose probity one understands. The idea that we can substitute the judgment of our electorate, of our hon. Friends and of the House of Commons by setting up a commissioner for ethics is bizarre.
Consider the salary involved. Ethics are relative; they vary. One has to put oneself, to an extent, in the position of those who are making those difficult judgments—the judgments that we all have to make. We make those judgments when we back our Government's view against our inclinations. As party people on both sides of the House, hon. Members realise that we can make progress only if we combine in a political party. That can produce some pretty hard choices for hon. Members, especially for those in government.
There are all sorts of difficulties, such as when one feels that one has a duty to one's region but there is a conflict with the interest of one's county. Such conflicts happen all the time. All hon. Members deal with them by working a seven-day week and by earning £33,000 a year.
I understand why some of my hon. Friends have done so, but I have never criticised the payment of a parliamentary salary under the present arrangements. If, however, the commissioner for ethics is to do anything other than sum up what a ridiculous spectacle we have made of ourselves, he should have some insight into the people on whom he passes judgment. He might even care, as my third amendment proposes, to be on the salary of a Back Bencher. Alternatively—I note that he thinks that he can do the job in four days a week—perhaps he would like to work for four sevenths of the salary of a Back Bencher and nod along on £18,000 a year.
I tabled the amendments to make the point about how ridiculous this proposal is. I do not suggest for a moment that Members of Parliament—we may hear cries of "Shame" in a moment—should be paid £126,000 a year, but if Sir Gordon Downey is giving us an example of what a Member of Parliament should be paid for his four days, that is what the salary would amount to. It would make us look ridiculous. The idea that, ultimately, we shall impress our electorate, raise the standards of this House or serve our constituents better by employing somebody at that salary makes us a laughing stock.
When was the job advertised? Are we supposed to believe that, despite all the efforts of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), no one could be found to do a four-days-a-week job for less than £74,000? Perhaps it comes to this: if one is to do such a ridiculous job, the very institution of which underlines and undermines everything that the House should stand for, the salary must be made very high indeed.
I have no criticism of Sir Gordon Downey, who has clearly had a career of distinguished public service. In his twilight years, he must have thought that this was the best thing that had ever happened to him. On one level, so say all of us, but when this House legislates not to try to take forward the condition of the people but to exact political revenge on its opponents, it has a good night out but it demeans itself and this institution.
In due course, the lawyers among us will swarm over the fine print of the recommendation to make sure that it hangs Opposition Members when we really get stuck into the nature of their trade union funding. The mere fact that we can enjoy that does not alter for a moment the fact that what we have done tonight, in a spirit of rancour on one side of the House and sheer cravenness on the part of many of my hon. Friends, undermines an institution to which our constituents sent us to preserve. Many of us should be ashamed of ourselves.

9 pm

Mr. Michael J. Martin: I favour the appointment of Sir Gordon Downey. It is sad that we have had to make such an appointment, but we have had to do so because there have been abuses. It is a red herring for Conservative Members to argue about his salary. When unemployed people in my constituency look at my salary and those of other hon. Members, they wish that they had such a salary. It cannot be argued that a Member of Parliament should not be appointed because of his salary.
I have seen problems that could be referred to an independent body. I left the Select Committee for Trade and Industry because I was deeply concerned about what hon. Members were doing when they visited countries at the expense of this House. When I went with the Select Committee to China, we were treated like royalty. I was deeply ashamed when members of the delegation handed out their business cards, which were written in Chinese for the benefit of their hosts, and said, "This is my business card. Get in touch with me if you need advice on a particular industry." One day, an hon. Member took an interpreter supplied to us by the Chinese Government to a meeting on private business for a telecom company with which the hon. Member was involved. Now that this appointment has been made, hon. Members can at least go to the commissioner, say that something is worrying them and ask whether he will look into it so that standards do not deteriorate.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House have seen the setting up of all-party groups. Anyone can tell that those groups are set up to become involved in lobbying in the House. Sir Gordon Downey, and even we in this House, could look into that ridiculous set-up. We have the best facilities that can be offered in the centre of London. They are given free of charge to hon. Members with an important all-party affair that they want to bring forward. Yet at this very moment, lobbyists are going around Parliament seeking to set up all-party groups for their own ends. Perhaps Sir Gordon will also look at the activities of those so-called all-party groups.

Dame Jill Knight: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument carefully. Surely, a Member who suspects that another Member is

doing something wrong can report that either to Madam Speaker or to the Chairman of the Privileges Committee, or some such body. What is wrong with that?

Mr. Martin: It is getting to the stage when so many complaints are made that the Chief Whips and you, Madam Speaker—I know that I should not draw you into the argument—are fed up with listening to Members like me talking about the type of abuses that are going on.

Dr. Robert Spink: Rubbish.

Mr. Martin: The hon. Gentleman and many others have attacked me because I am a sponsored member of a trade union. I have put on my declaration the information that my constituency party, not me, gets £150 a quarter. There is a big difference between that and what some hon. Members are getting from promoting their consultancies in the House.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: We appreciate the service that the hon. Gentleman gives to the House. I have never cast any aspersions on what sponsorship or support he may get, but a little earlier he cast aspersions on a member of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry which visited China. He said that one or more members of that delegation handed over a business card, as he put it—a visitors' card, or personal card—to those Chinese people whom they met in the People's Republic of China.
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, when Members of Parliament go abroad, those whom they meet, whatever their position—Members of Parliament, civil servants, business people and people in social work—frequently give them a card? I have thousands in my desk that I have been given over the years. Does the hon. Gentleman not understand that that frequently happens?

Madam Speaker: Order. Let me remind hon. Members that we are straying from the motion on the Order Paper. We have little time for this debate. Many wish to speak, so I hope that Members who are called will make their points briefly.

Mr. Martin: I will be brief, but I should like to point out that I sat through the previous debate, so I have not just come into the Chamber.
Let me spell it out to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton)—I do not think that he listened to what I said. Certain Members gave out their private business cards when they were part of a delegation visiting China on the business of the House. One hon. Member took away the interpreter who had been supplied for the benefit of the Select Committee in order to do business for a private company. That is the point that I am trying to make, and if the hon. Gentleman has not picked it up, there must be something wrong with his hearing. You are right, Madam Speaker: perhaps I am straying from the motion. I see standards deteriorating all the time. That must stop, for the benefit and good name of the House.
I hope that the commissioner will also look at the activities of some people in the press, because they are not so honourable. They are prepared to take payments to write certain stories that suit their own ends. There are also lobbyists going around this building who are interested not in our constituents or in the honour of the House but merely in their own private and personal gain.

Mr. John Butterfill: I regret that the decisions made earlier this evening will make it necessary for us to appoint Sir Gordon Downey. That is no criticism of Sir Gordon, whom I have known for many years. He is a man of great ability and integrity. There are few people we could choose who would do the job better than him.
The difficulty is that what we have done this evening has created a situation in which we will be seen as naughty schoolchildren, who have had to put someone above us in order to ensure that we behave. That is a tragedy.
As you know, Madam Speaker, I was one of those who voted against the first motion, and I then voted against the amendment tabled by the Opposition. I did so, as you know, not because I was worried about disclosing what I receive in consultancy payments for the British Venture Capital Association and for the British Insurance and Investment Brokers Association—because you know that I had intended in my speech, before the Division, to reveal what I was paid by those organisations. I shall reveal it now, because I do not want it to be thought that I was in any way going to be forced to do so.
I am paid by each of those organisations a sum of between £10,000 and £15,000, to use the bracket of revelation that we must now use. I have never done anything for either of those organisations of which I would be ashamed. However, what we have done tonight is to ensure that, because of the ban on advocacy and because we shall have to go to Sir Gordon to obtain permission to do things now, we cannot now speak freely in the House in the way that we might have done previously—a right that we won from Charles I and have given away this evening.
For example, when we introduced the insurance premium tax a little while ago, I and other hon. Members who represent the insurance industry in the House said to the insurance industry, "You cannot resist the imposition of that tax, but we must ensure that the way in which it is implemented is as efficient as possible, both for the public and for the industry."
The Government were proposing that the tax should be implemented on net payments after commission. The problem with that was that it would have been impossible to calculate the tax because of the various commission structures and bonus commissions and everything else, so I, along with others, went to Ministers and said, "That is a crazy way to proceed; it must be calculated on gross commissions." The net effect of persuading them that that was the case is that it is much easier for the Inland Revenue to collect money, and the industry has a much easier way to proceed.
In future, we shall not be allowed to do that; we shall have to go to a commissioner and obtain permission.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Gentleman can do those things. Nothing in the world stops him from doing them. All he has to do is to resign his consultancy.

Mr. Butterfill: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, but he knows that those of us who take on that work engage in considerable additional work to do so, and it is not necessarily unreasonable that we should be paid. I do not

suppose that the hon. Gentleman takes on consultancies of that nature free, although I have done some free. I acted, for example, for—

Madam Speaker: Order. I must bring the attention of the House back to the motion before us. We are not concerned with an earlier debate. We are simply concerned with the appointment of a parliamentary commissioner, and that is set out in three lines on the Order Paper. Hon. Members must relate what they have to say to that motion and not stray as far as they are doing now.

Mr. Butterfill: I am grateful to you, Madam Speaker, and I shall return to that issue.
What I object to in the appointment of a commissioner is that we, as Members of the House, are making ourselves subject to someone who is not a Member of the House. We should not be accountable to a commissioner. We should not be accountable to a Select Committee set up by the Government and Opposition Whips Offices. We should not even, with great respect to your person and your office, Madam Speaker, be accountable to you. We should be accountable only to our constituents.
By doing what we are doing tonight, we are taking away that sovereignty of Parliament in a way that I believe is damaging. I believe that we shall not restore the confidence of the public because now we shall be seen to be behaving only because we have to behave.
If we had had a voluntary register and the opportunity to register all the details of our employment—I am grateful that we now have that opportunity because, as you are aware, Madam Speaker, I would have so registered—we should have had to account to each of our constituents as to why we were not registering those things that our constituents thought that we should enter. We would be behaving like honourable Members, and that is the only way ultimately that we shall obtain the respect of the public.

Mr. David Harris: As someone who has never sought to have paid interests outside the House, I have no personal problem in being made accountable to the proposed commissioner. My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) spoke for many of us in the House, both in his speech tonight and in what he wrote in the Evening Standard earlier today, when he posed serious questions about the effect of tonight's business on the well-being of the House of Commons. I heartily agree with what he said and wrote.
To turn directly to the matter before the House, I shall ask a succinct question of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who speaks for the House of Commons Commission. Precisely how was the sum of £72,000 per year that Sir Gordon is to receive arrived at? What was the basis of fixing on that precise level of payment to Sir Gordon? Is there any truth in the suggestion that that was the minimum that he said he would have to be paid if he was to accept the appointment? Could the right hon. Gentleman answer those direct questions?

Mr. Chris Mullin: I do not take the same apocalyptic view as the hon. Members for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and for Teignbridge


(Mr. Nicholls) who spoke at the beginning of the debate. I wonder how the commissioner will be able to fill four days a week after the initial flurry of activity—I think that he will be pressed to do so. I think that there should be full disclosure of Members' incomes from all sources—that would resolve the problem, as we would not have to pay his £72,000 a year to arbitrate on the different sources of Members' incomes.
I have a few questions to ask the Leader of the House—who appears to have made a run for it—or his representative on earth about how the commissioner was appointed. Was the job advertised? I believe that it was. How many applications were received? How many names were short-listed? What form did the interviews take? I hope that before the end of the debate the Leader of the House or his representative will answer those questions, as I am curious to know the answers.

Mr. Bill Walker: I am deeply concerned about what we are doing this evening. When, over the passage of time, people look at the votes that took place earlier and at the appointment to which the motion refers, they will wonder why we went to so much trouble when the mechanisms required to discipline, organise and manage this place already exist.
The unwritten United Kingdom constitution was our inheritance and we were fortunate to inherit it. As a Member of Parliament who represents a minority of the UK population who live in Scotland and look to this place to look after their interests within the UK, I am aware of the deep concern among my constituents that the High Court of Parliament will no longer take the final decisions on matters affecting their representative. I do not represent a narrow partisan view, any more than does anyone else in this place. All my constituents have the right to come to me and to expect me to be able to ask questions on matters that directly affect them as constituents.
I am concerned that we are putting in place a structure, a mechanism, that is substantially flawed. Anyone who has attempted to read the measure on which we voted earlier will realise that the commissioner will face considerable problems. How does one ask an individual to arbitrate on articles that have been written in newspapers about specific matters affecting future votes in the House on how money is spent? Often, the individual concerned is paid handsomely for his efforts because he is a Member of Parliament.
Articles written by hon. Members appear in the Scottish press every week. Will those hon. Members be debarred from leading parliamentary delegations that may affect the national health service or from asking questions or initiating and participating in debates? I believe that we have put in place the most appalling, structurally deficient measures, which are comparable to what has come out of Europe in recent years. They do the House no favours.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concerns. Hon. Members would be debarred only if they had already entered into some form of commercial contract with a pharmaceutical company, for example, and they are not obliged to do that.

Mr. Walker: I make it clear that I do not have any problems with the measures personally. However, I am concerned about what we are asking the ombudsman to do.

I believe that lawyers will have a field day with the measures that we have attempted to insert into the structures and rules of this place. The hon. Member for Newham, South shakes his head, but he may live to regret his actions.
I return to the example of hon. Members who write articles for newspapers. Those individuals are paid to write articles because they are Members of Parliament and because they have direct access to the House. In fact, they often base their articles on questions that they have asked in this place. I do not want those hon. Members to stop writing articles, any more than I want other hon. Members to cease gaining similar experience outside the House. It is that sort of experience that makes the Chamber what it is. If all hon. Members shared the same backgrounds and experiences, the Chamber simply would not function properly. The unwritten constitution of the United Kingdom depends vitally on the independence of hon. Members who represent all their constituents.
As an aside, I was astonished to hear the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) criticise all-party groups. I think particularly of the delightful Scotch whisky all-party group, of which I regularly speak in favour although I am a teetotaller. I digress for a moment because I find his comments horrendous.
I believe that the House is more important than any narrow, partisan point-scoring exercise. I want my grandchildren to inherit what we were lucky enough to enjoy: all the benefits that the unwritten constitution of the United Kingdom provides.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I did not intend to speak in the debate until a few moments ago. However, the tone of the debate that has followed the voting suggests that Conservative Members are bitter about what has occurred tonight. That underlying bitterness is coming through in the debate.
I am among those who have followed the debate very closely over the years and I suspect that many hon. Members are exaggerating the effect of the changes that we have made. There will be much discussion about the changes in the Committee that is to be established. I believe that a number of rulings will be arrived at through precedent and, when those rulings are laid down, hon. Members will be able to identify to what extent they are in order when they speak in the House of Commons or use the procedures of this place. Hon. Members must take stock and not react in the hysterical manner that seems to have characterised the debate tonight.

Mr. Butterfill: The hon. Gentleman is wrong in what he says about feelings of bitterness: we accept what has happened. However, even if we ban advocacy, there is not a legislature in the world where that does not occur. Surely all that we have done tonight is drive it underground, and that is never a good thing.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I do not want to stray from order and it would not be in order for me to reply directly to the hon. Gentleman, but he should consider what he has said. To suggest that advocacy will be driven underground suggests that some Members are prepared and are now giving notice of the fact that they intend to breach the


rules of the House of Commons. That would be a grave error of judgment and I hope that the hon. Gentleman has the opportunity to correct what he said.

Mr. Butterfill: I shall happily do so.

Madam Speaker: Order. I have cautioned the House before that we are dealing with a very small motion and hon. Members in their interventions are leading those hon. Members who have the Floor down quite the wrong path. I hope that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) will not give way. He must speak to the motion that is before us. The hon. Gentleman's interventions do not deal with the motion at all.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Let me say something in defence of Sir Gordon Downey. Together with other members of the Public Accounts Committee, I worked closely with him for many years. I was on the Public Accounts Committee for 11 or 12 years and Sir Gordon was there for about six of them. He has an extremely incisive mind and sees his way through very complicated issues. That came out often during deliberative sessions of the Public Accounts Committee. Anyone who was on that Committee in those years can only endorse what I have to say.
If Conservative Members are concerned about what will happen in the Committee, they will find that Sir Gordon, in bringing his mind to the problems that may confront us, will certainly find ways to resolve those problems that will be endorsed by the Committee.

Mr. Winnick: Does my hon. Friend accept that, if the proposal had been put before us some years ago, I probably would have opposed it? Does he agree that it was the failure of the Select Committee on Members' Interests time and again to tackle some of the issues which undoubtedly embarrassed the House and which has now made such a measure inevitable? It is right that we should go ahead with the appointment.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Sadly, that is the case. When I was on the Select Committee on Members' Interests we had a very good team. The Chairman of the Committee, the hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) was here this evening, but he is not in his place at the moment. He will recall that we had a particularly good team and worked very well together through a number of difficult inquiries. However, late last year and at the beginning of this year, the Committee ran into the long grass and found that it could no longer proceed. I was not on the Committee, as I came off it two years ago.
The Committee was required to examine a couple of complaints. It was almost impossible for it to proceed because, for a variety of reasons outside the Committee's control, Parliament was polarising on those issues in the light of the scandals that had been reported in the national press. In my view, that polarisation made it difficult to proceed without the intervention of an independent person or persons to adjudicate on those matters. We effectively started with Nolan. Nolan was there to some extent to adjudicate on the best way forward and make recommendations to Parliament with which we could then proceed. We have now reached the next stage and perhaps an independent element will help the Committee avoid the log jams that will inevitably arise over the coming months.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: I would like to bring the hon. Gentleman back to the central point of our debate this evening. He has given his opinion of the gentleman who will preside over the new Committee. The hon. Gentleman has now recommended him to the House. No one is making slighting references to the gentleman in question. The point surely is that many hon. Members on both sides of the House think that a salary of £72,000 is obscene—not to mention the cost of his secretarial back-up, his office and so on. Perhaps if the man in question has retired on an index-linked pension and is comfortably off, he should be public-spirited enough to offer to do the job for nothing.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Lady's intervention reminds me to correct an error in what her spouse said earlier. Sir Gordon Downey was an Officer of the House of Commons: he is not an outsider. He understands this House. If, over time, he believes that his salary is not warranted, it will come as no surprise to hon. Members to hear me say that he will probably ask for the salary to be renegotiated. He is not the sort of man to demand such a salary ad infinitum if he knows he does not warrant it. He sought a salary of that grade on the basis that he felt that the amount of work required of him would go with a substantial salary—

Mr. Nicholls: Four days a week!

Mr. Campbell-Savours: We do not know that—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) has already made a contribution to the debate.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I do not usually spend my time defending salaries of this size; but in certain circumstances we have to pay the market price if we want good people. Sir Gordon will not be working four days a week. He will probably spend much of his week just as we spend ours. The public think we work three and a half or four days a week, but the hon. Member for Teignbridge talked about our working seven days a week. During his first year in the job, Sir Gordon will certainly not work a four-day week. He will find that he has to do an immense amount of work that will certainly warrant a large salary in the early period. But eventually he may volunteer to have the salary renegotiated.

Mr. Nicholls: The resolution refers to a four-day week, although there may be a little more work to begin with. The hon. Gentleman appears to be saying that he is authorised by Sir Gordon to say that he will apply for a pay cut in the near future. The hon. Gentleman is an experienced Member of this House, so may I ask him whether he thinks £72,000 a year is too much, too little or just right?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I must sit down soon, but I will end on this note. My party has stood accused for decades of promoting the politics of envy. I sense a little envy in what the hon. Gentleman is saying this evening.

Mr. Beith: With the leave of the House, I shall try, in the time available, to reply to the main points of the debate. I do so not, as the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) thinks, on behalf of the Leader of the


House, nor, as the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) thinks, on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, but on behalf of a Commission on which Front and Back Benchers of all three parties are represented, under the independent chairmanship of Madam Speaker.
Aspects of the debate have gone over the same ground as the previous debate. The Commission had no authority to question the House's decision to appoint a Commissioner for Standards, which was taken on 19 July. The Commission has no power whatever over the salaries of Members, which are decided on a resolution of the House. So we could do nothing about either matter even if we had chosen to do so.
The Commission considered the question of salary carefully and at some length. In fixing the annual salary at £72,000, on the basis of what has been determined as a four-day week, the commission was obliged to take account of a number of factors. They included the importance attached to the duties involved, the previous salaries of likely suitable candidates and our statutory responsibility to pay salaries in line with those in the civil service. We also had regard to the problem presented by the difference between salary levels suggested to us and the salaries of right hon. and hon. Members, with whom the commissioner will have to deal. Some of us held particularly strong views on that point.
The recommended salary, which is at the bottom end of the permanent secretary scale reduced by one fifth because of the four-day week, represents a compromise—and one that I hope that the House will accept, so that there will be no delay in the detailed implementation of the decisions taken by the House this evening.

Mr. Ray Whitney: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Beith: First, I must try to answer the questions of right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part in the debate.
The hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) asked how the choice was made. The Commission was assisted by the board, chaired by the First Civil Service Commissioner, and benefited from advice given by consultants who contacted 135 individuals in a general trawl. Eighty applications were received in response to advertisements in two newspapers. Short and long lists were devised. At the end of that extended process, the commission was unanimous in approving the appointment of Sir Gordon Downey.
I say to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) that Sir Gordon's wide experience and considerable reputation suited him well for the post. The details of his career are set out in the report on which the resolution is based, which the hon. Gentleman can read. As Comptroller and Auditor General—and I attach particular importance to that post, as did the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours)—Sir Gordon had extensive experience of the workings of the House, of Committees and of Members of Parliament individually, as well as of the pressures under which they work. All those represented compelling reasons for appointing Sir Gordon.

Mr. Mullin: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Beith: I will give way to the first hon. Gentleman who asked me to do so.

Mr. Whitney: Against the background that the misdemeanours that gave rise to the whole Nolan process

have been so few and far between, is the right hon. Gentleman telling the House that he and the Commission seriously believe that when the arrangement is in operation, there will be a sufficient number of problems of the kind in question to keep Sir Gordon occupied four days every week? Did the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues on the Commission really reach that conclusion?

Mr. Beith: We were advised by the Select Committee. If the hon. Gentleman will read its report, he will find references to the possibility of full-time and part-time work in the post. Initially, the Commission reached the conclusion that for the first year or two at least, a full-time post could be fully justified. Only after some discussion was the post reduced to one of four days a week. We recognise that once the system has become established, it may prove possible for the work to be undertaken with a smaller commitment of time. We envisage that happening, and it is assumed that the post will be reviewed at an appropriate stage. Perhaps the number of days will be reduced, in which case the salary will be adjusted accordingly.

Mr. Harris: Can the right hon. Gentleman refute the suggestion that £72,000 was the absolute minimum that Sir Gordon would accept? In other words, that he insisted on being paid £72,000—true or false?

Mr. Beith: If I had been a party to any negotiations with individuals, which I was not, I would not disclose them on the Floor of the House—any more than one would expect any person to do. The Commission made a decision as to the level of salary and made a recommendation to the House. It did so having considered a range of factors that go in conflicting directions. The salary is less than that paid to others in the service of the House. Even the full-time equivalent—I touch on a point made by the right hon. Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins)—is less than the salary of the Comptroller and Auditor General, who is paid significantly more.

Sir Terence Higgins: I did not actually say that. As right hon. and hon. Members will be required to deposit their contracts with Sir Gordon, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether Sir Gordon's contract has been deposited in the Library? In particular, can the right hon. Gentleman remind the House of the term of Sir Gordon's contract and the circumstances under which it may be renegotiated?

Mr. Beith: The Select Committee made it clear that the commissioner should be in a position of some independence and be capable of being dismissed only on a resolution of the House. The contract is, if I recall rightly, a three-year term, and it can only be ended short of that period on such a resolution. Most of the details of the appointment are set out in the report itself. I commend it to the House.

Sir Terence Higgins: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Madam Speaker: Is the right hon. Gentleman giving way, or has he finished?

Mr. Beith: I have finished, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Does the right hon. Gentleman wish to make a speech, as there is time?

Sir Terence Higgins: Briefly, as it seemed appropriate to ask what the term was. I am not at all clear why, if we are to renegotiate the terms, it should be a three-year term.

Mr. Phil Gallie: I had not intended to get involved in the debate, but I am a bit stunned. I follow the excellent speeches that were delivered by my hon. Friends the Members for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) and for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). I find it astounding that, month by month, year by year, we hear from Opposition Members how wrong it is for individuals with high salaries to be appointed, particularly to run industries where wealth can be accrued, but where, as suggested by Opposition Members, individuals should not benefit to the full level of their contribution.
Here we have an individual who is in retirement, who has undoubtedly given great service to this country in the past, but who is being brought out of retirement on a salary of £72,000 a year. I feel quite sure that Opposition Members will find it very difficult indeed to justify to their constituents how they can support such a move.
I honestly feel that the House has got it wrong on this issue and that it is setting a very bad example indeed.

Mr. Mullin: Did the hon. Gentleman hear me ask a moment ago how many people were on the shortlist for that particular job and how many were interviewed? Did he notice that I got no reply and that when I attempted to intervene to follow it up I was the only person who failed to catch the attention of the hon. Gentleman concerned? Does he think that we should have an answer to that question?

Mr. Gallie: I believe that the hon. Gentleman should have had an answer. I believe that such a position should have been advertised to the fullest extent, in line with the wishes and desires of Opposition Members and so many expressions in the past—

It being one hour after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, Madam Speaker put the Question, pursuant to Order [3 November].

The House divided: Ayes 231, Noes 71.

Division No. 239]
[9.42 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Bright, Sir Graham


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Browning, Mrs Angela


Amess, David
Burden, Richard


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Burns, Simon


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Burt, Alistair


Arbuthnot, James
Butler, Peter


Ashton, Joe
Callaghan, Jim


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Baldry, Tony
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Barnes, Harry
Campbell-Savours, D N


Barron, Kevin
Canavan, Dennis


Bates, Michael
Cann, Jamie


Battle, John
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Carrington, Matthew


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Cash, William


Bellingham, Henry
Chapman, Sir Sydney


Beresford, Sir Paul
Chisholm, Malcolm


Bermingham, Gerald
Clappison, James


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)


Booth, Hartley
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Boswell, Tim
Coe, Sebastian


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Cohen, Harry


Bowis, John
Colvin, Michael


Brandreth, Gyles
Congdon, David





Connarty, Michael
Jowell, Tessa


Conway, Derek
Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Kennedy, Jane (L 'pool Br'dg'n)


Couchman, James
Khabra, Piara S


Cran, James
King, Rt Hon Tom


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Dalyell, Tam
Kirkwood, Archy


Davidson, Ian
Knapman, Roger


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)


Delvin, Tim
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Dewar, Donald
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Donohoe, Brian H
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lidington, David


Dowd, Jim
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Duncan, Alan
Luff, Peter


Eastham, Ken
McAvoy, Thomas


Eggar, Rt Hon Tim
McFall, John


Elletson, Harold
MacKay, Andrew


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Evans Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
McLeish, Henry


Evennett, David
Maclennan, Robert


Faber, David
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fatchett, Derek
McMaster, Gordon


Fishburn, Dudley
Maitland, Lady Olga


Forman, Nigel
Malone, Gerald


Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)
Martin, Michael J (Springburn)


Forth, Eric
Mates, Michael


Foulkes, George
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Merchant, Piers


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Fraser, John
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Milburn, Alan


French, Douglas
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Fyfe, Maria
Moss, Malcolm


Galbraith, Sam
Nelson, Anthony


Galloway, George
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Garnier, Edward
Norris, Steve


Gillan, Cheryl
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Godman, Dr Norman A
Oppenheim, Phillip


Golding, Mrs Llin
Ottaway, Richard


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Page, Richard


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Paice, James


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Pearson, Ian


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Pickles, Eric


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Pike, Peter L


Gunnell, John
Pope, Greg


Hague, Rt Hon William
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy
Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)


Hanson, David
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Hardy, Peter
Rathbone, Tim


Hawkins, Nick
Reid, Dr John


Heald, Oliver
Richards, Rod


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Henderson, Doug
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Hendry, Charles
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Rooker, Jeff


Home Robertson, John
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Hood, Jimmy
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Hoon, Geoffrey
Sackville, Tom


Horam, John
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Howarth, George (Knowsley North)
Shersby, Sir Michael


Jack, Michael
Short, Clare


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Simpson, Alan


Jenkin, Bernard
Sims, Roger


Jessel, Toby
Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Soames, Nicholas


Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Spencer, Sir Derek


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Spink, Dr Robert






Spring, Richard
Watts, John


Sproat, Iain
Wells, Bowen


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Streeter, Gary
Whittingdale, John


Sweeney, Walter
Widdecombe, Ann


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Wilkinson, John



Willetts, David


Thomason, Roy
Winnick, David


Tredinnick, David
Wood, Timothy


Trend, Michael
Worthington, Tony


Walden, George
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Waller, Gary



Ward, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Mr. Michael Brown and Mr. Robert G. Hughes.


Waterson, Nigel





NOES


Alexander, Richard
Lynne, Ms Liz


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Maddock, Diana


Alton, David
Madel, Sir David


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Mills, Iain


Ashby, David
Moate, Sir Roger


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Bendall, Vivian
Neubert, Sir Michael


Bennett, Andrew F
Nicholls, Patrick


Budgen, Nicholas
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Pawsey, James


Chidgey, David
Porter, David (Waveney)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Powell, William (Corby)


Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Dover, Den
Rendel, David


Dunn, Bob
Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Durant, Sir Anthony
Shaw, David (Dover)


Foster, Don (Bath)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Gallie, Phil
Skinner, Dennis


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Gorst, Sir John
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Stephen, Michael


Grylls, Sir Michael
Sykes, John



Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Hannam, Sir John
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Hargreaves, Andrew
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Harris, David
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Harvey, Nick
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Haselhurst, Sir Alan
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Hicks, Robert
Viggers, Peter


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Johnston, Sir Russell
Wallace, James


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Whitney, Ray


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Knox, Sir David
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Lawrence, Sir Ivan



Leigh, Edward
Tellers for the Noes:


Lewis, Terry
Mr. Tony Marlow and Mr. Michael Stern.


Loyden, Eddie

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That Sir Gordon Stanley Downey, KCB, be appointed Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards on the terms of the Report of the House of Commons Commission (HC 789), dated 30th October.

Orders of the Day — Medical (Professional Performance) Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 2

VOLUNTARY REMOVAL FROM THE REGISTER

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 3, leave out lines 25 to 29 and insert ("—

(a) providing for the erasure by the Registrar from the register of medical practitioners of the name of any person who applies, in the manner prescribed by the regulations, for his name to be erased from the register;
(b) providing for the refusal by the Registrar of applications under paragraph (a) above in such cases and circumstances as may be prescribed by the regulations;
(c) making provision")

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Sackville.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Lords amendment No. 2.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Lords amendment No. 1 relates to the part of the Bill that allows registered medical practitioners voluntarily to withdraw from the register. The debate in this place, both Upstairs in Committee and here, was inevitably linked to the reasons for that, to the acceptance or otherwise of a voluntary application for erasure from the register and—I put this within the ambit of this discussion—to the terms on which there should be any application for readmission to the register.
Labour Members' concern was recalled by the noble Baroness Cumberlege, and I understand that I can quote her on this matter as she is a member of the Government, giving a Government view: She said:
during the debate in another place there was concern that some doctors might abuse the provisions of clause 2 to avoid proceedings concerning serious professional misconduct. The Opposition tabled a number of amendments aimed at addressing that but none of them gave the GMC the flexibility it requires.
I fear that she was not reading at least some of the concerns of Labour Members and, I hope, of the whole House. Parliament lays down the ambit for the rules within which the General Medical Council works, but it appeared from her remarks that the GMC was requesting a degree of flexibility that at least Labour Members, both in Committee and on Report, were asking for, and it was denied on those grounds.
The amendment provides
(a) … for the erasure by the Registrar from the register of medical practitioners of the name of any person who applies, in the manner prescribed by the regulations, for his name to be erased from the register",
and
(b) … for the refusal by the Registrar of applications under paragraph (a) above in such cases and circumstances as may be prescribed by the regulations".


The obvious purport of that amendment was made clear by the noble Baroness Cumberlege when she said:
If a doctor decides he cannot maintain a good standard of performance or does not wish to undertake remedial training, he should be allowed to remove his name from the register. Clause 2 provides for this and other similar circumstances in which a doctor may simply no longer wish to be registered; for example, if he is going to work abroad. It also has the effect of providing a quick and easy way for a doctor to remove himself from practice.
The Government and the noble Baroness claim that the loophole allowing a doctor to remove his name from the register when he is about to be, or suspects that he is to be, subject to either the performance channel, which is opened up in the Bill, or the professional conduct channel, which is there at present, is to be stopped up to some extent, but that is not so, at least in relation to the wishes of the House. The loophole is stopped up to allow the registrar to act on regulations prescribed by the General Medical Council, and we do not know what those are.
A continuous theme of the debate both upstairs and on the Floor of the House was that the Bill provides the General Medical Council with powers to make regulations and a very wide discretion which, in the view of many hon. Members, were too imprecise. The regulations to which the amendment refers cover one of seven pages of the schedule and about three pages of the main Bill and therefore there is concern that the clause, although no one could oppose it because it partially stops up something that has been spotted, does not go anything like far enough. The provision is not linked in any precise way with the following part of the clause, which is not being amended and which allows for application for reinstatement.
The GMC has the discretion to restore a member. That does not reassure the public, despite the fact that the noble Baroness said:
The amendments will enable the GMC to make regulations to allow its registrar to refuse applications for voluntary removal in defined circumstances.
I interpret those circumstances to be those defined in regulations, not defined by this House. She continued:
this will not only give the GMC flexibility, but also send a message to the profession and the public that the GMC takes a grave view of matters of serious professional misconduct."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 July 1995; Vol. 566, c. 490–91]

It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Lords amendment stood adjourned.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business),
That, at this day's sitting, the Lords Amendments to the Medical (Professional Performance) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]

Question agreed to.

Question again proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Spearing: I beg to contest the noble Baroness's statement. As I said, it is a very loose arrangement with the regulations being entirely in the hands of the GMC. My understanding—the Minister can correct me if I am wrong as these matters are not simple because there is a whole mass of interlocking regulations—is that the regulations must have the approval of the Privy Council,

which was the historic origin of the GMC, quite properly, a century ago, and indeed, probably quite properly, of its court of appeal.
I am not sure whether the regulations relating to voluntary removal and reinstatement have to come back to the House under a negative procedure. I am sure that it will not be the affirmative procedure because that proposal was thrown out in Committee. I suspect that the regulations will require only the approval of the Privy Council and no more. If that is so, contrary to what the noble Baroness said, it is evidence that the question of serious professional misconduct and what then happens is in the hands of the Privy Council and the GMC alone, without any reference to this House.
Another matter that was debated in Committee in the other place was raised by Lord Rea. He referred to me because his amendment related to the Archer case, which is well known to the GMC and to the House. His amendment would have allowed the existing professional conduct committee, of which the noble Baroness is so proud, to deny its right to send back to the professional performance committee a finding on a doctor whose performance was considered to be professional misconduct, but not serious. It was suggested that the matter would have to go back to the screener.
Although I do not think that anyone could oppose the Lords amendment, it exemplifies not only the complexity of the Bill and the schedule, but the fact that virtually the whole Bill allows the GMC enormous scope to make its own regulations. This House will have very little opportunity—in fact, none in some cases—to approve the regulations. The operation of the Bill, when it is enacted, may not provide—not least because the professional procedure is in secret—the advantages and the improvements that the GMC says that it wants and that the Government say that the Bill will produce.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): I am glad that the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) said that no one could oppose the amendment. I am sure that we can dispose of it fairly quickly. I am glad that he approves of the amendment in principle, recognising the concern that some doctors could take advantage of the clause and the Bill to avoid proceedings for serious professional misconduct and that there could therefore be instances when the public interest would be served by a doctor remaining on the register and facing a committee hearing. The hon. Gentleman suggested that the regulations allowed by the amendment are too broad but we believe that experience shows that we can give the GMC the flexibility that it needs to strike a balance in the matter. I commend the amendment to the House.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 2 agreed to.

New clause

Lords amendment: No, 3, after clause 2, to insert the following new clause—Preliminary proceedings: interim orders—
. —( 1) Section 42 of the Medical Act 1983 (preliminary proceedings as to professional misconduct and unfitness to practise) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (3), in paragraph (c) for the word "two" there shall be substituted the word "six".


(3) In subsection (4), for the words "No order for interim suspension or for interim conditional registration shall be made by the Preliminary Proceedings Committee" there shall be substituted the words "No order under subsection (3)(b) or (c) above or (6A)(b) to (d) below shall be made by any Committee".
(4) In subsection (5), for the words "If the Committee decide" there shall be substituted the words "If the Preliminary Proceedings Committee decide".
(5) In subsection (6), for the word "two" there shall be substituted the word "six".
(6) After subsection (6) there shall be inserted—
(6A) Where an order for interim suspension or for interim conditional registration has been made in relation to any person under any provision of this section (including this subsection) the Preliminary Proceedings Committee, the Professional Conduct Committee or the Health Committee may, subject to subsection (4) above—

(a) revoke the order or revoke any condition imposed by the order;
(b) vary any condition imposed by the order;
(c) if satisfied that to do so is necessary for the protection of members of the public, make an order for interim suspension; or
(d) if satisfied that to do so is necessary for the protection of members of the public or is in the interests of the person concerned, make an order that his registration shall be conditional on his compliance, during such period as is specified in the order, with such requirements so specified as the Committee think fit to impose for the protection of members of the public or in his interests.
(6B) An order under subsection (6A)(c) or (d) above—

(a) shall take effect as from a date not later than the date on which the interim suspension or interim conditional registration would otherwise come to an end; and
(b) shall specify a period not exceeding three months.
(6C) If an order is made under subsection (6A)(a) to (d) above the Registrar shall forthwith serve a notification of the order on the person to whose registration it relates.
(6D) Where an order has been made under any provision of this section, the court (within the meaning of section 38 above) may—

(a) in the case of an order for interim suspension, terminate the suspension,
(b) in the case of an order for conditional registration, revoke or vary any condition imposed by the order,
(c) in either case, substitute for the period specified in the order some other period which could have been specified in the order when it was made;
and the decision of the court on any application under fin; subsection shall be final.".
(7) Subsection (7) shall cease to have effect.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Sackville.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 4 to 8, 12, 13 and 15.

Mr. Sam Galbraith: Lords amendment No. 3 allows for the suspension of a doctor by the General Medical Council, through its preliminary proceedings committee, for the safety of the public in a case in which an issue has been raised against the doctor in respect of his or her health or professional conduct.
There is a difference between suspension on health grounds and on professional conduct grounds in that suspension on health grounds is unlikely to be controversial and there would be only limited doubt about it. However, a doctor could be suspended because of allegations about his or her professional conduct without having had a chance to answer the allegations.
In most cases, that will not be a problem. I accept that because I foresee that, in the majority of cases, complaints would have been raised with the health board or hospital, which would have pursued the matter and may or may not have then terminated the doctor's contract. The matter would then be further referred to the GMC and no controversy would be involved.
However, there will be cases where allegations will be made specifically by the public without the employing authority or the doctor having been involved. In that case, suspension by the General Medical Council will have serious implications for the employment of doctors before they have had the chance to answer the allegations against them.
I know that the GMC is separate from the employing authority. I understand that distinction and it is right that the matter is not covered in the Bill. I hope that the Minister will accept that this is one of the difficult grey areas relating to employment which arise as a consequence of the Bill. I hope that he will discuss the matter with the British Medical Association when it reaches conclusions about the future employment of its members who are suspended under those conditions.

Mr. Sackville: I certainly accept the hon. Gentleman's point. The House will agree, because it was discussed extensively during earlier stages of the Bill, that interim suspension should be extended to a longer period to allow the General Medical Council more time to bring proceedings. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's acceptance of that.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 4 to 15 agreed to.

PETITION

Channel Tunnel Rail Link

Mr. Peter Snape: I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of the national officers and council of executive members of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers.
Tonight, of all nights, I had better declare an interest. I am a member of the RMT and was a member of the union when it was known as the National Union of Railwaymen, of which my father was also proud to be a member.
The officers and council of executive members declare that it is in the interests of the economy, industry and environment of the United Kingdom, and in the best interests of those employed in the railway industry of the United Kingdom, that a high-speed railway line between London and the Channel tunnel be constructed as expeditiously as possible. It is a sad commentary on our transport policy that, when a high-speed line has already been constructed in France and is in the process of construction in Belgium, I should have to bring this petition before the House. The petitioners therefore request that this House of Commons uses its influence to ensure that such a high-speed railway line is constructed at the earliest possible date.
I do not have to remind you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, of the depth of railway experience among the officers and members of the executive. On their behalf, the petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

Campbell Soups

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: This is a story of deception, intrigue, exploitation and injustice. It is the story of how a large multinational company, with profits of $698 million last year, more than $7 billion in net sales world wide and an international reputation—a company responsible for marketing a branded product, known throughout the world for its quality—targeted for closure a small, technologically advanced, highly profitable food company in north-west England. In so doing, it totally undermined the morale of a town.
The multinational company concerned is Campbell Soups of America, one of the largest food producers in the world. The plant in north-west England is Homepride Cook-in Sauces in Maryport, a town reeling from the effects of escalating unemployment, which, in parts, reaches nearly 25 per cent.
Having purchased Homepride's operations in Maryport under the procedure of a mock auction, that multinational company in pursuit of profits gave those in the work force assurances as to their employment, fooled the vendor as to the plant's future and effectively stole the brand name. Within eight weeks, it announced the sacking of the work force with a spurious offer of transfer to other plants. That created mayhem, distress, anger and a deep sense of seething injustice and resentment among the local community.
In 16 years of being the Member of Parliament for Workington, I have witnessed and experienced many closures. I have seen the rundown of the footwear industry, with the closure of Bata and other footwear companies. I have witnessed the rundown of parts of British Steel Corporation's Workington operations, the closure of the Leyland-Volvo bus plant, and many other closures. But this closure has been the worst of the lot because it can be justified neither morally nor commercially and because a poor but proud and loyal community is being punished for having made a success of a company that threatened the market share of a predator multinational.
I want to say a few words about the background to the sale. Dalgety, the former owner of the cook-in sauce business, having recently acquired Quaker European pet foods operations for £422 million, found that it needed to raise a substantial amount of money. To raise those funds, it decided to sell off a number of its more profitable processed food operations.
Earlier in March, Dalgety had said that it was looking for bids for various food operation divisions. In the case of Homepride in Maryport, a number of organisations were either invited by Dalgety or approached by it with a view to purchasing those Homepride operations.
A de facto auction was announced and over a period of months a number of organisations became involved in the bidding arrangements. They included, first, BSN Danone—I understand that that company is registered in France; secondly, the CPC organisation; thirdly a venture capital arm of the National Westminster bank; fourthly, Schroder—its interest appears in part to have centred on


its role as adviser for CPC; fifthly, a separate arm of Schroder specialising in venture capital projects; and, sixthly, Legal and General Insurance. Those are but some of the organisations that expressed an interest in acquiring the Homepride Maryport operations.
A number of bids came from organisations that were putting together packages that involved a combination of privately held equity, institutional equity and offshore funding. Even organisations such as Investors in Industry—3i—were partially involved. Some bids relied on the services of a management buy-out team, which in certain circumstances would have held direct equity, and perhaps even share options.
One of the problems was that it was recognised that a trade buyer would always be more risky than acquisition by a consortium sponsored by a financial institution, but no one could say anything. No one was allowed to warn the work force of the dangers. Why? Because the whole sale was shrouded in confidentiality. The Homepride sales prospectus, a veritable limited edition publication, was kept under lock and key. Any individual or institution in any way involved in the sale or purchase of Homepride was bound by what can only be described as an oath of confidentiality. In other words, "Keep your big mouths shut, because if you don't, we'll sue." That meant that no one could identify the motives of the individual players.
What I can now reveal is that, apart from one, all the people who were bidding wanted to keep the plant open. They all realised that it was a highly profitable company; indeed, it was the jewel in the crown of Dalgety's profitability. They recognised Maryport Homepride, with its ever-increasing production and profit potential, as a cash cow. There was, however, one company bidding that did not want to keep the plant open—Campbell Soups. It knew that it had to close the plant down because it threatened its strategy for the United Kingdom.
Campbell Soups was so determined to close the plant down that it outbid all the other bidders and signed a deal on 4 August. What did it buy? It bought a business with a book asset value of £9 million and a profit of £4 million on a turnover of £28 million—all for the princely sum of £58.6 million. The size of that figure suggests the desperate nature of its desire to acquire the business, grab the brand name and close down Maryport operations.
Sadly, in the final hours of the negotiations, Dalgety failed to recognise the dangers, with the effect that it failed to secure an undertaking guaranteeing the retention of the work force on the Maryport site, as had happened in the Reckitt and Colman sale of its sauces business in a back-to-back deal with Bass and Unilever.
Campbell Soups, of course, did not want such a deal, so why did it want to close the operation down? First, it wanted to acquire the substantial brand name of Homepride. Its overriding, overarching obsession with brand names is clearly demonstrated in the 1995 annual report of the United States parent operation. Secondly, it wanted to acquire a turnover injection of nearly £30 million in Campbell's United Kingdom operations. It desperately needed that because of its failure to turn in good figures on its existing operations, which some in America were questioning.
Finally, Campbell's desperately needed to secure the removal of capacity from the Maryport site, which could potentially damage its commercial objectives in the cook-in sauce market. We have to understand that the

Maryport operation, in spite of a high profit against asset/turnover ratio, still left immense scope for further production and profit taking.
At the time of the takeover of 4 August, in a series of carefully prepared news releases and statements, Campbell's, hiding behind ambiguity, set out to convince the West Cumbrian public, the Maryport work force and, to some extent, even City institutions that the acquisition was good news for Maryport. Certainly the work force was misled because, at a meeting between Mr. Al Simpson and Mr. Daryl Brewster and the work force held on site at the beginning of August, they even had the gall to suggest that they were considering bringing new products to Maryport. I quote them:
We are thinking of bringing pasta sauces to Maryport".
I further quote from a letter of 4 August 1995 from Mr. J.W.T. Mustoe:
We are proud to be the new owners of Homepride sauces. There is no doubt that it is a fine brand, and, as many of you will know, Homepride Sauces was at the forefront of developing the cook-in sauce market. It fits in very well with our portfolio of brands which included Campbell's Soups, Fray Bentos, Rowat Pickles and Campbell's/Food service Businesses. You may be unaware that Campbell's is the biggest sauce manufacturer in the world and it is fitting that the UK's largest cook-in sauce brand"—
Homepride—
has joined us. We believe that we can build on the strength of the Homepride Sauces name as well as develop and grow
business in
the cook-in sauce market.
To avoid those in the work force being alerted to the impending disaster confronting them, Campbell's even went through the spurious exercise of conning local management, who in the main appeared to have been in blissful ignorance of what was happening, into organising, in August, Investors in People status for the Maryport plant. The document produced by the company and given to the work force in August stated:
We"—
the company—
firmly believe that implementing the Investors In People Programme as part of our overall strategy will allow our Company to continually develop, expand and build on the success of introducing new product ranges and processes into our operations here at Maryport … The Programme will cover everyone within the Company and we firmly believe that it will be a major benefit to our organisation and to everyone working within the Company and further demonstrate our commitment to the development of people within Maryport, however, we recognise that our success with the Investors in People will only be achieved with everyone working together.
Furthermore, having put local management through that hoop of deception, Campbell's then had Mr. Mustoe, United Kingdom group managing director, tell me that local management supported the closure as it thought that there was no alternative. Closure of that highly profitable plant—what a betrayal of the truth and of his own newly acquired employees.
It was all a deception, which has now persisted for more than 14 weeks, and we are only at the beginning of a struggle.
As recently as last week, I learned of a decision that had been taken in early August to put a new production line into another Campbell's plant for the production and handling of Homepride cook-in sauces. Last week, the company


announced that 50 workers were seriously considering moving to Campbell's other plants. Another "porky"—the real figure is nearer 10 and may be as low as six.
Perhaps the company's wriggling and shifty footwork of last week is an even clearer sign of its intentions. Last week, I asked the Campbell's UK group managing director whether he would arrange for me to address the board of Campbell's at its New Jersey headquarters in the United States of America. I offered to cross the Atlantic. I also asked to be given the option to attend the annual general meeting, which is due on 16 November, and Campbell's could have allowed me to enter as a guest. I understand that that is the position under American law.
A public relations company started ringing up both myself and the media offering irrelevant responses in an attempt to evade the central questions that I have been asking. My questions still remain unanswered and I shall be tackling those issues when I visit King's Lynn next week, to appeal to the workers of the King's Lynn Campbell plant to black production lines transferred from Maryport in my constituency.
This is a saga of deceit and dishonour. The conduct of the company's UK operations is totally at variance with the standards of corporate governance set out in the memorandum of 6 October 1995 provided to shareholders who were invited to attend this year's annual general meeting in Camden, New Jersey in 10 days' time. Paragraph 18 of that document—which has only just been published in America and was sent over from America to me last week by sympathetic people—states:
The company does not have a poison pill"—
the Campbell company is talking about itself—
or other anti takeover devices because it believes that the way to remain independent is via superior performance in building shareholder wealth".
The people of Maryport did just that: they built the shareholder wealth of Dalgety through its Homepride operations. They, too, did not have a poison pill because they believed that they were the jewel in the Dalgety crown.
I am sure that well-respected and internationally regarded old-money members of the Dorrance family on the board of Campbell's American operations will understand what I mean when I suggest that new-money business decisions taken in little old England appear to lack principle. If the Dorrance family still remain unconvinced, I would ask them to look at the memorandum that I have just mentioned. Under the heading,
Requirements of Managers and Directors
it refers to
Strong, principled and ethical leadership".
The family have been let down by people on this side of the Atlantic who should have known better. I beg them to intervene out of a sense of Christian conscience. What is happening is wrong; it is immoral; it is unprincipled and must be stopped.

The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Jonathan Evans): I appreciate the force of the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for

Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), who has sought to raise the issue in the House on a number of occasions. I have been present when he has made points of order and asked questions of myself and ministerial colleagues. I congratulate him on his success in bringing the subject to the Floor of the House tonight. By the emotion that he brought to his remarks, he demonstrated his strength of feeling over the issue.
It must be recognised that industry generally operates in a competitive environment, and the Campbell company has existed in the United Kingdom since 1959. It currently employs more than 2,000 people—I think the figure is 2,100—in five locations in the United Kingdom. It has plants in King's Lynn, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham), who is watching tonight's debate, and in the constituency of my former hon. Friend, now the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth). It has three other plants in Glasgow, Salford and Peterlee, but they are not so central to the change in operations mentioned by the hon. Member for Workington. In my remarks I hope to outline the way in which the Office of Fair Trading has previously considered the issue.
Campbell's has invested quite heavily in the United Kingdom food industry in the past 12 months. The hon. Gentleman referred to its £56 million purchase of the Homepride sauces plant and, collectively, I believe that its expenditure has been about £100 million. In the context of tonight's debate—the impact of Campbell's decision on Maryport in the hon. Gentleman's constituency—I recognise that announcements such as that to which the hon. Gentleman referred can be a body blow in areas of high unemployment. That fact was reflected in the force of the hon. Gentleman's remarks.
For what it is worth, Campbell's has sought to safeguard the 123 jobs at its plant by offering employment at its two sites at Stratford-on-Avon and King's Lynn. I recognise, however, that the practicalities of accepting such offers are bound to be limited. The hon. Gentleman said that the company announced last week that some 50 people might take advantage of the offer. Irrespective of whether 10 or 50 people do so, they must deal with the practical difficulty of moving from the hon. Gentleman's constituency to the two alternative locations.
I recognise that the closure is a deep disappointment in Maryport. In dealing with such matters, the Government endeavour to do their best to assist in developing new job opportunities within the constituency affected. I shall detail those endeavours later in my speech.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the Minister give me a straight answer to a very simple question? Does he believe that it is right in principle that a company such as Campbell Soups of America can move into a constituency such as mine and close down an extremely profitable operation with huge potential? I have seen the Dalgety production forecasts well into the next century. Does he believe that it is right in principle that a foreign conglomerate with a huge international reputation should have the market power to move in and destroy jobs in an area of high unemployment? Will the Minister give me a straight answer to that question, because it is what my constituents want to hear?

Mr. Evans: I shall certainly give the hon. Gentleman a straight answer in the context of the reaction of any


Member of Parliament facing a similar difficulty. I am sure that all hon. Members would share the great concerns that he has expressed. However, he invites me to come to the Dispatch Box as a Minister and to outline the Government's response to the situation. He knows well that the Government are not in a position to intervene, other than in certain circumstances that I shall outline briefly in the course of my remarks.
Before I do so, it is important to list some of the areas in which the Government are providing assistance both in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and, more broadly, in the north-west. I think that the hon. Gentleman will be aware of the work of the local training and enterprise council and Inward in trying to attract businesses to the area. As the Department of Trade and Industry Minister with special responsibility for the north-west, I have been present in the Chamber when the hon. Gentleman has paid tribute to the work undertaken by Inward in an attempt to attract additional investment to his constituency. I know that he recognises that work.
I am also aware that Cumbria training and enterprise council has met Campbell's to offer its guidance and help to employees at this particularly difficult time. The training for work programme has been very successful in the Cumbria area. I understand that 74 per cent. of participants in courses held as part of that programme have gone on to secure other jobs or to engage in further education and training. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that west Cumbria enjoys assisted area and European objective 2 status, which I am sure will prove helpful in the long term.
I shall now clarify an issue that the hon. Gentleman did not raise tonight but which he has raised previously. The Department of Trade and Industry paid a regional selective assistance grant to the Dalgety company in order to safeguard jobs at the Maryport plant. One instalment of the grant was paid in July 1993. The Government office for the north-west will be seeking the recovery of those moneys in view of the circumstances that the hon. Gentleman has outlined.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: May I press the Minister again on the issue that I raised with him previously? I am seeking a value judgment. Do the Government condemn the actions of multinational companies that go into assisted areas of the United Kingdom which have been helped to grow by Government resources and close down profitable companies irrespective of the impact on the local economy? Ministers must have a view on such matters. I am asking for a value judgment. Do the Government find it acceptable and feel that it is all part of the play of market forces or do they say, "No, we do not like these activities"? I want an honest response about the Minister's position.

Mr. Evans: I gave the hon. Gentleman a fairly honest response previously. Although he is disappointed by the announcement, at least two hon. Members will have gained because new job opportunities have been announced in King's Lynn and in Stratford-on-Avon arising from those circumstances. With respect, I am showing sympathy for the predicament of the hon. Gentleman's constituents.
The hon. Gentleman has mentioned on previous occasions his concern about how takeover rules apply in such circumstances and I am aware of that.
The merger control procedures that we operate under the Fair Trading Act 1973 place a duty on the Director General of Fair Trading to advise my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on merger matters. The hon. Gentleman will know from his previous questions that the Director General of Fair Trading advises on whether a merger should be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, but it has to be a qualifying merger. He will know that the general policy that the Government have adopted is to consider the impact of a proposal on the development of competition. That remains our broad policy.
In compiling his advice, the Director General of Fair Trading takes account of all relevant factors, including the views of third parties, but not all mergers are large enough to be considered by him under the Fair Trading Act: one of two tests has to be met. One is that the assets being acquired are worth at least £70 million.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: This is not relevant to Campbell Soups.

Mr. Evans: I am raising the matter with the hon. Gentleman because I am very much aware of the concern that he raised specifically in his press release, drawing attention to the impact of takeover rules. It is important for his constituents that I outline exactly what those rules are and explain that in the circumstances the tests were not satisfied for the merger control procedures to be activated.
The Director General of Fair Trading examined the matter before reaching the conclusion that it did not qualify and that under merger control procedures he was unable to make any recommendation to the Government. In those circumstances, the Government have no power to act or intervene.
Furthermore, I am aware of factors concerning the development of the soup market generally. The hon. Gentleman did not refer specifically to it, so I do not intend to deal with the Government's view of Campbell's role in the soup market.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Destructive.

Mr. Evans: I am aware that the hon. Gentleman feels that, as he represents the area that is most markedly affected.
In essence, the Government broadly sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's constituents. The training and enterprise council and the inward investment bodies in the north-west stand ready to assist in the development of new job opportunities in Maryport. Although I certainly recognise that the hon. Gentleman remains very worried about the activities of Campbell's, which acquired a plant and closed it down within two months, that is ultimately a matter for the commercial judgment of the company. It is not a matter in respect of which the Government are in a position to intervene.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes to Eleven o'clock.